UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION * * * * * * * * PUBLIC HEARINGS * * * * * * * * Before: PATRICIA SILVEY Hearing: Thursday, October 25, 2007 9:02 a.m. Four Points by Sheraton Hotel 1938 Stanton Way Lexington, KY 40511 Speakers: Paris Charles, Barry Compton, Andy Fields, Greg Xanders, Don McCorkle, Pearl Farler, Gerald Kendrick Any reproduction of this transcript is prohibited without authorization by the certifying agency. I N D E X OPENING REMARKS By Ms. Silvey 5 - 15 Statement By Mr. Charles 15 - 26 Questions by Panel 26 - 45 Statement By Mr. Compton 45 - 55 Questions by Panel 56 - 70 Statement By Mr. Fields 70 - 74 Questions by Panel 75 - 76 Statement By Mr. Xanders 76 - 83 Questions by Panel 83 - 88 Statement By Mr. McCorkle 88 - 90 Questions by Panel 90 - 93 I N D E X (cont.) Statement By Mr. Farler 94 - 99 Questions by Panel 99 - 112 Statement By Mr. Kendrick 112 - 114 Questions by Panel 114 - 121 CLOSING REMARKS By Ms. Silvey 121 - 122 CERTIFICATE 123 EXHIBIT PAGE PAGE NUMBER DESCRIPTION IDENTIFIED NONE OFFERED P R O C E E D I N G S ----------------------------------------------- MS. SILVEY: Good morning. My name is Patricia W. Silvey. I am the director of the Mine Safety Administrations Office of Standards Regulations and Variances. I will be the moderator at this public hearing on MSHA's proposal for mine rescue teams. On behalf of assistant secretary Richard E. Stickler, I want to welcome all of you here today. The MSHA members of the panel are --- let me introduce them. To my left Michael Kalich, Coal Mine Health and Safety, and to his left Tom MacLeod who's with our office of educational policy development. To his left Jeff Kravitz who is with the office of technical support. To my right Cherie Hutchinson who is in my office, and next to her Matt Ward who is our lawyer on this project with the office of the solicitor's office, and to his right Mr. Phan who is in my office and is an economist. And these people were principal parties in helping to develop this proposal. And at this point, I would also add some of them on this panel who had mine rescue --- many years of mine rescue team experience. Before we start this hearing this morning, I would like you to join me in a moment of silence in memory of the miners and rescuers who've lost their lives in mine accidents and including those in the unfortunate events at Crandall Canyon. So right now if you would please join me in a moment of silence. MOMENT OF SILENCE MS. SILVEY: Thank you. This is the second of four public hearings on this proposal. We held a first hearing on Tuesday in Salt Lake City, and we'll hold the other hearings in Charleston on next Tuesday, October 30th and in Birmingham, Alabama on next Thursday, November 1. We will be holding a public hearing on the mine rescue team equipment proposal this afternoon. It's scheduled for two o'clock, but if this hearing concludes earlier I most likely will start the mine rescue team equipment hearing at one o'clock in this same room. We are holding the two hearings each day so that persons interested in both rules can attend the hearings. The mine rescue team proposal applies only to underground coal mines. In the back of the room --- back of the room. Right outside of the room we have copies of the Federal Register that contains the proposal. The comment period for the proposal ends on November 9th, and significantly --- and this is the first time that we've announced comments due this way. We must receive your comments by midnight, eastern standard time on November 9th, and we are noting the time zone so that there is no confusion about when the comments are due. As of October 19th MSHA had received three comments on the proposal, and you can view the comments on the Agency's website, www.msha.gov, under the section entitled rules and regulations. The proposal would implement the provisions of section four of the mine improvement and new emergency response, Miner Act of 2006, which strengthens training requirements and addresses composition, availability and certification requirements for coal mine rescue teams. The purpose of these hearings is to receive information from the public that will help us evaluate the requirements in the proposal, and produce a final rule that will improve overall mine rescue service, mine emergency response time, mine rescue team effectiveness and the quality of mine rescue team training. The preamble to the proposal discusses the provisions in the rule and includes a number of specific requests for comment and information. As you address these provisions either in your testimony to us today or in written comments, please be as specific as possible about how the changes would affect the safety and health of miners and mine rescue team members. MSHA also requests detailed information and data on the costs and feasibility of the provisions. At this point, I would like to discuss some of the specific requests for information that we included in the proposal. The agency requests comments on the proposed reorganization of 30 CFR part 49 and on the approach taken. And as you know, specifically, under the proposed rule we had separated it into two parts, subpart A and subpart B. And subpart A would be for underground metal and non-metal mines, and we created a new separate subpart B containing both existing standards and proposed new MINER Act provisions for underground coal mines. MSHA is proposing that team members of state-sponsored teams who are full-time state employees may substitute their regular job experience for 50 percent of the training requirements. The agency requests comments regarding the types of state relationships with teams and team members that would qualify the team members as employees and the team as state sponsored. MSHA is proposing that mine rescue teams be available at the mine within one hour from the mine rescue station in accordance with the MINER Act requirement. The Agency solicits comments on whether some existing stations may need to be moved to meet this requirement. To assist in developing our regulatory economic analysis, the agency would like to know how many additional mine rescue stations would be needed to comply with this new requirement and where would the new stations need to be located? The Agency also solicits comments on whether mine operators, state agencies or other entities will encounter any difficulties in meeting the requirement. The Agency asks that comments include specific feasibility information such as cost or technical capability in support of their positions. MSHA requests comments on the proposed 64 hour training requirement, specifically whether the proposed hours of training should be --- and that's the 64 hour annual training requirement. Whether the proposed hours training should be increased or decreased in the final rule, and as you know the existing annual training requirement is 40 hours. Commenters should address the rationale for the amount of training, the type of training, the number of hours of training that should be required for specific activities and the impact of such a requirement on the mining industry's ability to form additional mine rescue teams or retain current mine rescue team members. The proposal requires mine rescue teams to train at each mine serviced by the team. Team serving mines with 36 or fewer employees and under the MINER Act those mines are designated as small mines and 37 up are large mines. Anyway, teams serving mines with 36 or fewer employees must train at each covered mine semi-annually. Mine site teams and state-sponsored teams which are required to train at large mines, annually would have to train at small mine semi-annually if they service a small mine. Contract mine rescue teams would have to train quarterly at each of the large mines they service. Composite teams would have to train semi-annually at each of the large mines they service. MSHA invites comment regarding the training requirements for the different types of teams. MSHA also requests comments on whether this training at the covered mine needs to be conducted underground. In addition, MSHA solicits comments regarding the types of teams that are available to mines having 36 or fewer employees, and whether these teams should be able to use other types of teams such as composite teams consisting of one team member from each covered mine rather than two team members from each covered mine as required by the MINER Act. Would additional mine rescue teams be needed to comply with the new requirement for teams to train at each covered mine? What would be the make up and composition of new teams? Commenters should explain any suggested alternatives including supporting documentation and data. The proposal requires underground coal mine operators to provide certified mine rescue teams and includes criteria for certifying a team. The statement to the district manager certifying the proposal would require each mine operator to submit an annual statement to the district manager certifying the qualifications of the mine's mine rescue team. To make this certification less burdensome for mine operators the Agency developed a form that can be found online. MSHA welcomes any suggestions on the form and requests comments and recommendations for other alternatives for certification of mine rescue teams. The proposal requires mine rescue teams to participate in two local mine rescue contests each year. MSHA developed criteria for a local mine rescue contest and requests comments on the proposed criteria. The Agency solicits comment on whether there should be a minimum amount of annual training prescribed for contest judges. The Agency's considering allowing attendance at training on contest rules and interpretations to satisfy the requirement for annual training for judges, and MSHA requests comments on this approach or whether some other type of training is more appropriate. The proposal would allow other training that provides an equivalent realistic simulation exercise such as mine emergency response development or MERD drills to substitute for participation in a local mine rescue contest, and the Agency requests comments on this alternative. MSHA prepared a preliminary regulatory economic analysis for the proposal which contains estimated supporting data on costs and benefits. MSHA estimated that the proposal would result in 28 additional mine rescue stations, 56 additional mine rescue teams, no change in the level of service provided by state-sponsored teams and stations. The agency estimated a total annual compliance cost of $3.1 million and requests comments on all of the assumptions and data used in deriving the estimate. The hearing will be conducted, as some of you who've participated in these hearings with us before know, the hearings are conducted in an informal manner and formal rules of evidence do not apply. The panel may ask questions of the witnesses, the witnesses may ask questions of the panel. Cross Examination, however, is not allowed. MSHA will make a transcript of the hearing and post it on the Agency's website in one or two weeks following today's hearing. If you wish to present written statements or information, please, clearly identify your material and give it to one of the panel members. You may also submit comments following this hearing by any method listed in the proposal, and as I stated earlier to be considered we must receive your comments by November 9th. I would like to ask everyone in attendance this morning to sign the attendance sheet on the outside of the room if you haven't done so. And also if you need to sign the speakers list to do that, too. If you have a hardcopy or electronic version of your presentation, please, provide it to the court reporter. And now we will hear from those who signed up to speak, and I would ask you to please clearly spell your name for the reporter so that we have an accurate record. So at this time, I will start for persons and organizations who scheduled in advance. Our first speaker is --- I'm looking at Charleston. That's why I hesitated. I'm looking at the wrong --- that's what happens. You change the script. Usually I just have one sheet here to look at, and now I have a sheet with every hearing on it. So anyway, the first person is Paris Charles with Enterprise Mines. Mr. Charles. MR. CHARLES: My name is Paris Charles, P-A-R-I-S, last name Charles, C-H-A-R-L-E-S. I want to thank you for the opportunity to participate in this public hearing. I do not believe there is in any instance where mine rescue team efforts have been prevented or delayed because a lack of adequate number of highly trained and competent teams. Furthermore, I am aware --- I'm not aware of any instance where the arrival of the teams caused a delay in MSHA mine rescue efforts. However, I have read the criticism directed at teams for responding too quickly at the Darby Mine. My company represents mines in Virginia and Kentucky. Virginia has more than adequate mine rescue coverage with experienced highly incompetent teams who participate in the designated mine rescue program. Complying with these proposed rules in the MINER Act will totally eliminate this program. The State of Kentucky for a number of years has been the signatory team, mine rescue team, for every miner in the state. Kentucky law mandates that mine rescue teams be available with one hour driving distance. The Office of Mine Safety and Health offices are situated throughout the Kentucky coal fields meet this requirement. It will be detrimental to the industry if these 11 teams are lost due to inability to comply with the proposed regulations we're commenting on today. How does eliminating these programs enhance safety of our miners and mine rescue teams --- or mine rescue teams? It does not. In fact, it lessens it. I'm glad I was not a part of this decision. I am concerned that a lot of time and effort is being spent addressing the problem that does not and did not exist. I'm going to comment specifically on certain sections of the proposed regulations. My first comment is Section 49.11, proposals and scope --- or purpose and scope, paren (a), the ability of mine rescue capability has never hindered mine emergency rescue and recovery efforts. Miners get trained at covered mines, this training should not require involvement of all members of the team. Two members of the team should familiarize themselves with the mine and brief the remaining team members. If a composite team, the team members for that mine should be given credit for training at that mine. Stations within one hour of travel time of covered mines, the arrival time of teams have never hindered emergency mine rescue and recovery effort, therefore MSHA should consider grandfathering existing teams as noted below. Actually to dramatically be correct it should be as referred to the arrival and not teams. Team knowledge of operations and ventilation of covered mines redundancy, the training requirement will fulfill this requirement. On composite teams the composite team requirement for two members for each covered mine, there may be preexisting mine rescue teams extremely competent and experienced to provide current miners rescue coverage for several mines. These teams may disband because of this requirement or the minimum would have to break up or add potentially inexperienced in mine rescue miners to the team. In addition, if a composite team was to cover more than three mines the number of team members should --- could be creating a management challenge. Current mine rescue contest rules limit the number of team members who can participate in a contest and who can go to lock up. And what do the extra team members do? If an event occurs in a mine, which has two inexperienced members on the team providing coverage would those two members be required to participate in mine rescue effort or shall we allow two more experienced team members to participate? Contract team members are required to have a minimum of three years underground experience within the preceding ten-year period. However, surface miners who were active members of mine rescue team prior to the enactment of the Act of these regulations, this requirement should be waived for those members to work at the surface operations. If onsite experienced recovery for mine service are required to reduce the training requirements for state sponsored teams, the same logic should hold true for those composite team members who work at the mines covered by their team. Based on my work with mine rescue teams I suggest these regulations be modified so that the mine rescue teams, stations team members which were in existence prior to the MINER Act, be grandfathered into the new requirements without the mines or the teams being the one hour time limitation or having two members for each covered mine requirement. Clearly this will be a decision that will enhance safety rather than hinder the quality of the mine rescue coverage for many mines. 49.12, the availability of mine rescue teams, requires teams to consist of five members and one alternative. What if a composite team provides coverage for four mines? In one proposed rule composite team is required to have at least two members from each covered mine. In this proposed rule, teams must consist of five members and one alternate. What about those instances where two members --- or two miners were given a mine ---? What about the instances where two miners from a given mine are members of a composite team, and one of them is unavailable for a short time, such as sickness, illness, family emergencies, et cetera? What if one of them quits or transfers to another mine? Will mines have to shut down and all those members employed there lose their income during the time it takes to find a replacement? What if no one at the mine --- at the immediate composite team coverage will volunteer to be a team member? We also have that problem, too. Will it not be required to force someone to participate against their will. Can that member be forced to participate in emergency rescue effort against his will? Some composite teams may resemble musical chairs given the voluntary nature of our industry. Clearly the interest should be given --- have been consulted or have consulted mine rescue team professionals that provide coverage prior to developing these rules. Current teams and team members should be grandfathered into these new rules. Availability within one hour ground travel time should be replaced in this subsection. Since mines are actually located within --- where the coal seam says, well, this makes it impossible in some instances to locate the mine within one hour at the station as this states. Therefore, the station within one hour of all mines may not be possible. Existing stations could possibly have to be moved. There might be situations where moving a station could not --- move it within a one hour travel time, but more than one hour from one to another. Therefore, the district manager should have discretion to give exemptions to the one hour requirement circumstances exist to justify such a change. 49.13, alternative mine rescue capability for small and remote mines. In this section the district manager is considered capable of making decisions concerning adequate mine rescue coverage. Why is the limited to the --- why is this limited to small and remote mines? He should be giving the same latitude for all mines especially those mines where mine rescue teams are already in existence. Physical requirements on mine rescue team, in effect if a mine rescue miner fails a physical he should be able to obtain a second opinion before he can be removed from the team. Training for mine rescuers, 49.18. Credit should be given for other relevant training completed by the team members such as fire brigade training, participation in mine rescue response drills, et cetera. Our local district personnel are in frequent contact with our team members often helping with their practices. However, practices are routinely scheduled due to work schedules --- are rescheduled due to work schedules, sickness of members, et cetera. For the teams and the district manager to keep up with all these changes will do nothing but to distract our mine rescue training. I believe this provision should be removed from the regulation, but as always will continue to welcome and solicit interest in the local District's participation. Requirements for all mines, 49.20. The training requirement should be considered to be met by having at least two members from each time familiarize themselves with operations, the physical conditions and ventilations at the covered mine who would then be required to brief the remaining team members. These two team members could rotate regularly so that all miners gain firsthand familiarly with each miner. Team members who routinely work at the mine covered by their teams should be allowed to substitute their job experience for 50 percent of the training requirements. State-sponsored composite team members should be considered state employees including being credited for the time in training at the mine which they work. 49.40, requirements for large coal mines. As discussed above existing mine rescue teams should be grandfathered and still should be able to work and provide a primary mine rescue coverage to existing mines even though they are more than one hour from the covered mine, or if they're not individual mine site team or a composite team. Unless this grandfathered is granted, the competent highly trained experienced mine rescue teams in Virginia and Kentucky are likely to be destroyed, which is not good for the mine rescue program or the mine rescue coverage in Virginia and Kentucky. 49.50, certification of mine rescue teams. Since mine rescue teams and stations are subject to greater inspection, I do not think that a requirement is necessary and will serve a very limited purpose except to distract from the teams' trained preparation. 49.60, requirements of a local contest, local mine rescue contest. Clear standards need to be set for trained judges. My opinion, judges should have actual mine rescue experience, preferably experience in real emergency events. In a recent contest our team participated in the quality of one or more of the judges was called into question. We feel like the judges should have mine rescue experience in order to judge these contests. 75.150 --- or 1501, emergency evacuations. Many of these proposed training requirements go beyond what a responsible person at the mine should be required to do including duties MSHA will not allow. Responsible persons should not be expected to organize a command center. MSHA state company officials will establish a command center. Directing mine rescue personnel we feel like they should notice --- let them know MSHA and the state will be very upset if someone else directed the mine rescue personnel, and I don’t think teams and the trainers and instructors will follow those directions anyway. Establish a fresh air base, this is responsible --- this is the responsibility of the mine rescue teams. Employ mine rescue teams same as two above, they're not qualified to direct those mine rescue teams or deploy those mine rescue teams. It says, provide for mine gas sampling analysis. It's totally unreasonable expectation. There's no way that those guys can meet that requirement. Establish security, request yes, establish no. Establishment of security should be left to officials security personnel, and that's all the comments that I have. MS. SILVEY: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Charles. I have a few comments and then maybe a few questions and maybe just some things you can clarify. First of all, I'd like to make a few comments out the outset for everybody in the room, and quite honestly some of the comments that Mr. Charles made we heard maybe not exactly like he framed them, but we heard the general meaning of his comments in Salt Lake City. But I want to start out by saying that I think every member of this panel as I said earlier some members --- we had some members on the panel and some members who were involved in drafting the proposal but don't happen to be on the panel here with us today who've been involved in mine rescue team service for many years. And I said it on Tuesday and I'm going to --- and I think --- I know it's appropriate for me to say it now, that I personally believe and I think my boss believes and our panel members believe that there is no more noble service provided by anybody than the service provided by people on mine rescue teams. And I know from my many years having been involved in mining, 30 years now, that mine rescue team members provide the service voluntarily, they do it willingly, they do it, you know, oftentimes at great sacrifice, at no cost. You know, we see an analogy of that going on right now in California with respect to the fires that are going on, the firefighters. So at the outset I want to say that and say that we clearly appreciate that, and I personally don't think anything that the Agency has done as embodied in the proposals was meant to be critical of that. You know, you might have heard other people say things or whatever, but I don't think that reflected MSHA's sentiments about any unfortunate mine accident that we have had. And now as I say that I also want to say that we don't intend to negatively impact that good mine rescue service that's been a tradition in the mining industry for so many years. And then that --- and the third thing I want to say, I have to say is that --- but our goal, our purpose is to implement the MINER Act. We have to do that, too, so to some extent we are constrained by some of the provisions in the MINER Act, but I would be wrong if I said that we're not just going to go through a process and the process was not going to be meaningful. And so one of the purposes of the process is that we would go throughout the various four places and hear from the public and figure out how we can craft the final rule to give meaning to the MINER Act to try to achieve what the intention of the MINER Act is. But while at the same time to give meaning to mine rescue service so that we won't negatively impact that either. So with those general things being said, I want to ask you, Mr. Charles, again, because I guess I'm --- and maybe you didn't say it. I'm a little bit confused. You said you provide --- your organization provides mine rescue service in Kentucky; or did you? MR. CHARLES: No, I didn’t. MS. SILVEY: Yes. And I was going to say ---tell me again, are you --- about your organization and exactly how it provides the mine rescue service. MR. CHARLES: My organization --- I work for --- my parent company is Kentucky, Virginia operations of Alpha Natural Resources. MS. SILVEY: Okay. MR. CHARLES: They have mine rescue teams at Paramont and Dixon Russell. What I was alluding to was the state teams --- MS. SILVEY: The state teams, yes. MR. CHARLES: --- that provide service. Those teams --- stations have been set up within the state to provide that one hour travel time. They've never failed to respond to an incident within a timely manner. And I'm just afraid that we're going to lose that. There's a lot of quality people there that are state employees that devoted years of mine rescue service, that if we lose that then it's going to be very detrimental to miners in this state. MS. SILVEY: Okay. Let me ask you something. In terms of the mine rescue service provided at your organization, do you all provide it yourselves? Is it a mine site team or do you --- or is it provided by some other ---? MR. CHARLES: In Kentucky ---. MS. SILVEY: That your --- yes. MR. CHARLES: At our organization at Kentucky, the State of Kentucky provides our mine rescue service. MS. SILVEY: So the state does, so the state --- MR. CHARLES: Yes, it does. MS. SILVEY: --- provides the service? MR. CHARLES: Yes, it does. MS. SILVEY: Okay. Now, when you gave me --- we got to get specific here because you all heard me in the opening statement say that's the only way we can ---. You know, you got to have hard facts to be able to go and try to convince somebody to change something. And that's why, so don’t --- I want you to know it's not like I'm belaboring the point or clearly badgering Mr. Charles. I'm trying to get here so we can figure out where we're going. So when you said that --- I think at one point you said we would put these teams out of business. I mean, we would put the whole mine rescue effort, I guess. Tell me exactly how --- and let's take the State of Kentucky since ---. MR. CHARLES: Okay. MS. SILVEY: First of all, how many stations or how many teams, however you want to address it, do you think will be negatively affected by the rules and exactly how? MR. CHARLES: The way that I read the rules the state-sponsored teams, there's probably --- some of the specific requirements for them to meet, to practice at the mines and so forth, I don’t think that they can do that, not for every mine in Kentucky. There's just --- I got some figures the other day. There's 155 mines in Kentucky, 36 or fewer employees or 75 mines for 37 or more employees in the State of Kentucky. And here we have 11 teams provided by the state. MS. SILVEY: Is that the number of state teams is 11 teams? MR. CHARLES: That's the number of state teams, 11 teams. Yes, ma'am. MS. SILVEY: Okay. MR. CHARLES: There are six districts, five districts have two teams, one district only has one team. And to meet the training requirements of what's going to be specified that I've seen in the proposed rules, I'm afraid they can't meet those qualifications to remain as teams that they're composed of now. MS. SILVEY: Do they train at the mines now, the state teams, I mean? MR. CHARLES: I don’t know where they train at, ma'am, but I was --- I'm former executive director of the office of Mine Safety and Licensing in the State of Kentucky. When I was with the state, and I'm sure it's probably still that way, we had asked for volunteer miners to go train. But we did train underground at a particular mine to get our underground training in. But, you know, the way when I read the proposed regs, you have to train every mine that you cover and I don’t think that's possible. MS. SILVEY: One of the things, too, then --- and when I gave the earlier statement I forgot to add that MSHA's purpose was not to change the existing regulations at issue in this proposal, but the purpose was to implement the MINER Act requirements. Now, why do I add that? I add that because you mentioned two things. You mentioned the small and remote provision and you --- as well as the five members and one alternate, and as everybody knows those are existing provisions, the five members and one alternate, and the Agency's goal --- whole purpose in issuing this proposal was not to change that. I tell you what I would like though and now I see clearly what you said, the service is provided by the state team. I don’t know whether there's anybody here from the State of Kentucky or not, but I would like it if you could specifically --- even if you have to do it --- you don’t have to do it right now. Before the record closes on November 9th if you would provide us with exactly --- if the State of Kentucky teams had to meet those requirements that we have that. MR. CHARLES: Yes. MS. SILVEY: Exactly that we proposed, how many stations, how many teams, either or both, could not meet the requirements, could not provide the service. And I'm using your terminology now and would likely be destroyed, or, you know, couldn’t stay in business because they couldn’t meet the requirements. MR. CHARLES: I can do that. MS. SILVEY: Okay. That would be very helpful to us if you could do that. One more thing, you said something about on a composite team and I got to remember straight, two members of the team needed to train; --- MR. CHARLES: Yes, ma'am. MS. SILVEY: --- didn’t you? Yeah. But now let me just ask you that and then you went through why. You said the most experienced members, et cetera, but generally speaking, when a team is called in the team is called in as a team; is that right, the entire team is called in to serve? MR. CHARLES: Yes. MS. SILVEY: Okay. I just wanted --- anybody else have any comment? MS. HUTCHINSON: When you were --- when you made the assessment that the 11 state teams would go out of business for having to train at each mine, did that take into consideration the 50 percent allowance for state teams and training requirements? MR. CHARLES: I'll have to recheck my later comments. I'm not sure. MR. KALICH: I have a question. How many additional teams do you feel it would take to comply then? You said there's 11 teams in Kentucky that provide the service. MR. CHARLES: Yes. MR. KALICH: How many additional teams would it take to be able to provide it? MR. CHARLES: If the state wants to lose their ability to be the primary signatory team? MR. KALICH: Well, let's say, how many teams would the state have to have to be able to provide it? MR. CHARLES: Currently probably one team, the way I read the regs and the way the districts are laid out. There's one district in Kentucky that only has one mine rescue team. They would have to provide an additional team member to make that coverage available to all of them. MS. SILVEY: What about stations, do you think the stations are located ---? MR. CHARLES: The stations are located, yes, ample time frame. Yes. MR. KALICH: Well, you said the training requirements were a limiting factor on how many mines a particular team could provide coverage for? MR. CHARLES: Yes. MR. KALICH: So I mean, how many additional teams would it take to be able to meet the training requirements? MR. CHARLES: Let's just take, for instance, the Pikeville district, the Office of Mine Safety and Licensing, there's probably 93 underground mines in that district. Now, how those two teams train entirely 93 coal miners in a year's time, to meet, you know, the underground training requirements and so forth. MS. SILVEY: Let me ask you something, and I think my colleague has probably additional on that. Is the coverage in Kentucky provided solely by the state teams? Is that it? Is that what I'm hearing you say or do some ---? MR. CHARLES: There are mine rescue teams in Kentucky, but as far as I know, as far as the signatory team they are the team of record for every mine in the state. MS. SILVEY: Oh, is that right, the state team is the team of record for every mine in the state? MR. CHARLES: Yes, ma'am. MS. SILVEY: Okay. So ---? MR. KALICH: With the MINER Act requirements there's a number of company teams in Kentucky that could provide the service to their coal mines and to other mines; is there not? MR. CHARLES: There are, but when you start talking about mine teams, composite teams, contract teams, then --- I've got a mine that has 49 employees. Five months ago when these proposed regs, or whatever, came out, I put a sheet up for volunteers because my company is going to have to develop some composite teams, you know, to meet that. I've had one individual volunteer in five months, and we're waiting for the regs to come out to see what the final regs are going to be. I've had one individual at that mine of 49 employees who's willing to serve on a mine rescue team. MS. SILVEY: So why do you think that then? Why do you think that? MR. CHARLES: Why do I think that? MS. SILVEY: Uh-huh (yes). That you had only one? MR. CHARLES: People just aren't interested. I mean, they just --- it's plain and simple, that they're not interested in the time it takes for the training, the time that it takes away from families, you know, the additional time. Of course, they're paid for the additional time based on putting in that additional time. MS. SILVEY: But that really is a little bit --- and I don’t want to put words in your --- it's a little bit separate and apart from these regulations. I mean, you're sort of telling me another element. MR. CHARLES: If I have to have a composite team I don’t want individual volunteers. I'm going to have to draft --- will I have to draft someone, will I have to force someone? And if I have to force him to even practice when it comes time to call, God forbid an event, will he even show up? MS. SILVEY: We started out by saying the nature of mine rescue service is that it's voluntary. MR. CHARLES: It is voluntary, yes, it is. MS. SILVEY: That's right. That's right. Exactly. And I mean, if you don’t have that that sort of means your heart's not in it. MR. CHARLES: In today's environment, you know, it’s not unusual for --- there's a lot of job --- a lot of turnover in the industry. And, you know, here you've invested in training an individual to bring him on board in mine rescue team and somebody's offering $.25 more an hour down the road, he decides to leave then you're without a team member. So it's ---. MR. MACLEOD: Just on the people who are volunteering, we heard some comments from a gentleman in Salt Lake basically suggesting that even they hired people who are older that they have more things to do, there's more social things in their life. Just as a snapshot and curiosity for us, the people who you are asking, are they younger, middle aged? I'm just trying to see if there's a consistent ---. MR. CHARLES: They are probably an average 38 year, somewhere in that. They're ---. MS. SILVEY: Young. MR. CHARLES: But if you go to a mine rescue contest I'm sure you see a lot of gray hairs on a lot of team members. MR. MACLEOD: Sure. Thank you. MR. PHAN: I have a question. Are state team members, are they solely employed by the state, --- MR. CHARLES: Yes, they are. MR. PHAN: --- or they are just mine ---? MR. CHARLES: They're state employees. MR. PHAN: Okay. MS. HUTCHINSON: The MINER Act --- the proposed rule requires that each large mine have either a composite team or a mine site team, and you've stated that 75 underground coal mines in Kentucky would be considered large under this proposed rule? MR. CHARLES: Yes. MS. HUTCHINSON: Do you have any feel for how many of those already have a mine site team or a composite team? MR. CHARLES: No, I don’t. MS. SILVEY: That's what he ---. MR. CHARLES: Yeah, I will. MS. SILVEY: You said you would provide ---. MR. CHARLES: I will provide that. MS. SILVEY: He said he will provide that. MR. CHARLES: I'll have that documentation. I can provide that. MS. SILVEY: Right. Yeah. Thank you. And for people in the audience who --- we've got one more person on the list. I don’t know if that person intends to speak, but for anybody in the audience who hears some of these questions raised if you're with companies and your service happens to be provided by the state team, as you said a signatory team, even though you might have a mine rescue team. If you could provide your --- comments from your company on some of the questions we are asking Mr. Charles, we'd appreciate it very much. Okay. Well, then --- I don’t think we have any more questions, Mr. Charles. We appreciate your input, and we would, again, ask you to please if you could get us that information we ask before the record closes. And any additional information that you think might be clarifying or elucidating to us on some of the issues we talked about this morning, we'd appreciate it. MR. CHARLES: I'll hold these comments and send all of them to you. MS. SILVEY: Thank you. Thank you very much. MR. CHARLES: Thank you. MS. SILVEY: The next person on our list is Barry Compton, Dickenson Russell Coal Company. MR. COMPTON: Good morning. I come before you today as the captain of Dickenson Russell Coal Company's mine rescue team to offer comments and suggestions concerning the proposed regulations on 30 CFR part 49. As background I have 32 years mining experience, 26 years of which have been involved with mine rescue and over 10 years as a mine rescue captain. And I am also presently on the board of directors for post number seven National Mine and Rescue Association for Virginia. I've also been an underground mine superintendent for 22 years. As it relates to mining in my mine rescue career one event that stands clear in my mind while performing recovery work after the South Mountain mine explosion in 1992 where eight men lost their lives. I was called upon to identify a childhood playmate because he didn’t have proper identification on his person. This has been one of the most difficult things I've ever had to do, but while attending his funeral his mother thanked me and told me how grateful she was for my work. It gave her some comfort that I was part of the team that recovered her son from the mine, and I knew then that I'd always would want to be a part of a mine rescue team. Based upon my training and leadership as the captain of Dickenson Russell Mine rescue team I've actually taken exception to the determination that congress and MSHA has made that I am not adequately trained to do my job as a mine rescue team member. I am also concerned that the training proposed will make it difficult, if not impossible, for me to continue with my mine rescue leadership and will deter others from becoming a part of this great program. In fact, in November of 2006 I was given an opportunity to be present in Washington, D.C. when representatives from most all coal mining states met with top officials to express their concerns with the MINER's Act. One of your top officials stated that he didn’t feel it was the intent of Congress, nor of MSHA's, to destroy the existing mine rescue program and hopefully we can keep this from happening. I believe my suggestions, if implemented, will keep the mine rescue program intact and will permit me to continue to participate. My first suggestion is on Section 49.11, I feel the team members on composite teams should be given 50 percent credit for their training associated with their assigned mine. Under Section 4912(f), as far as being available within one hour travel time from the mine rescue station, travel time and response time have never been issues in mine rescue, event or situation. Therefore, to avoid disruption in any operation and effectiveness of existing mine rescue teams and stations, I would recommend that existing teams be allowed to maintain their stations at their existing location, even though they may be two hours from some mines. This would require a waiver of the one hour travel time requirement for these existing teams. However, any mine rescue station is established after the MINER's Act was passed would have to comply with the one hour travel time. I also believe that MSHA's district manager should be allowed to waive this requirement to no more than two hour travel time provided it would not reduce the safety of that operation. As I noted earlier, travel time has never been an issue in mine rescue situations. Under section 49.18(b), training for mine rescue team. As previously established by current MSHA regulations, our mine rescue teams are required to train 40 hours per year, have sessions underground at least once each six months, train and learn --- and using of the breathing apparatus by team members, have advanced mine rescue training, have mine ventilation training. And based on my experience these training requirements provided the team, the mine rescue team, with adequate and thorough training and should not be changed. Even though the current regulations do not require additional training, many of our teams actually supercede the training of these current requirements. We have additional training such as MERD exercises, fire brigade training, advanced mine firefighting training, recovery work even at our own operations. Mine rescue teams are professionals and need to be treated accordingly. These teams did not cause the accidents, but they responded to the accidents in a timely and professional manner. Under Section 49.20(a), participation in two local mine rescue contests. Clarification is needed on how team members will receive credit for attending the contest. For example, if a team consists of ten members, and many do and will, the current contest rules won't allow more than eight people in lock up. These additional members should get credit for attending the contest even though the contest would not permit them in lock up or allow them working --- to be a working member on the field. Requirement for the top of mine rescue teams under 49.20(b), excuse me, I feel that mines with less than 36 employees should be allowed to be part of the composite team. But mines of this size will not be able to contribute two members to a team. Therefore, I think a mine with less than 36 employees should only have to have one employee member instead of two members on the team and still be considered a composite team. This would assist this model group of operators and we also cannot ignore the fact that mine rescue teams members are volunteers. My team has lost two members in the last two months. One was due to an unexpected illness where the doctors disabled him and the other was for his loss of employment. More importantly I have not had one person contact me saying they would like to be a member of my mine rescue team. Section 49.20(e), mine rescue team training at each covered mine. With all these additional practices required at the covered operations it may make it impossible for interested individuals, such as me, to remain on a team. My team is made up of a general mine foreman, section foreman, supply motorman, shuttle car operator, a brick plant laborer, safety department representative and a mine superintendent. We are a diverse group of individuals representing employees that are represented by the UMWA, employees who are non-union and salaried employees. However, the training --- in other words, we work hand in hand when it comes to being a mine rescue team. However, the training at each covered mine and the required training requirements could cause employees to second guess their commitment. If they do continue on the team you are taking some of the most seasoned workers away from the mine where day to day safety enforcement is needed the most. Would this not reduce the safety level at the operations with these individuals gone so much? We have lost a generation of coal miners with the coal industry downsizing for 20 years. Even if we wanted to replace these individuals with other employees they aren't there. It will take years to train new members so they have the level of expertise we currently have. I ask you, have these regulations not caused this to take a step backwards? I feel the training at individual mines can be useful in some ways such as meeting with key individuals and discussing those items listed, ventilation, firefighting capabilities, mine maps, SCSR storage plans and seal locations. This training can be accomplished by splitting the team to train at these operations and then rotate those participants each month, exposing all members to an overview of the operation and location annually. When we talk about practicing underground at each individual mine I see little need for such training and at most should be voluntary, but I do support an existing standard to train underground at least once each six months. As experienced mine rescue team members know, when you arrive at a mine the condition of the mines are assumed not to exist as they did before the accident. And you make a recovery plan of how to enter the mine based on the mine maps, your prior expertise and experience, not on a mandated underground mine visit. For example, with the development of retreating and mine air courses those are, as you visited, are very likely not even to be accessible when you come for your next visit or come to an event. I ask, does the New York Fire Department practice firefighting in every building they protect? The answer is no, because it's not necessary. It does not add to the way they fight the fire. It would be a ridiculous requirement. Such a requirement of the mine rescue environment could be instrumental in destroying the mine rescue structure as it stands. In conclusion, I continue --- as you can tell from my comments for the last 26 years I've had a passion for mine rescue. I want to continue to lead men and women in mine rescue efforts, but I'm concerned that without change to the proposed regulations I will not be able to be effective in doing this in the future. One other comment I'd like to make is concerning all additional trainings and the comments that you have made earlier. These training sessions at the individual coal mines and all these operations that you may cover, it doesn’t take into consideration that you have to practice --- if you got to be in two contests annually, you got to practice to go to that contest. No one wants to go to a contest and be embarrassed, and it takes a lot of time practicing to do that and this is not time that's associated at a mine that's being able to comply with the regulation. Another comment that people made was about why do people not want to be on the team? If you take hours and hours away from their family, away from their job and so forth, it's a hardship. I've been asked by my wife for the last 26 years why don’t you quit? Why don’t you get away from this because of so much time and stress that's demanded by doing this? But as I say, I have a passion for it. Not everyone does. And to just think that we can go out here and pick these people and fill these positions it can't happen. Another thing I think has not been taken into consideration is we were talking about these additional teams. I think that everyone in this audience today would confirm that the problem is not just getting new teams, but it's been trying to hold together the teams that we already have. And it's also --- when we talk about building new stations or adding stations or moving stations, have we considered the fact that when we put a plan together to open up a coal mine then the fact they have to add the cost of putting in a new station just to meet the one hour travel time when it could very well be covered within 75 minute travel time away or even the two-hour travel time would make a difference between an operation being put into --- being a go or a no go situation. That's all the comments I have at this time. Do you have any questions? MS. SILVEY: Yes, I do. I have a few comments and a couple of questions. First of all, Mr. Compton, I want to say that on behalf of all of us we do appreciate your passion and thank you for your service. And I'm sorry for your loss. I'm sure that --- you talked about your childhood friend. I'm sure his mother felt comforted by the fact that you were there at South Mountain. Is your organization located in Virginia? MR. COMPTON: Yes, ma'am. MS. SILVEY: Yes, Virginia. Right. And I take it then that in your situation the mine rescue team service is provided by your company? MR. COMPTON: Yes, ma'am. We are also ---. MS. SILVEY: You all also provide service to other companies? MR. COMPTON: Yes, ma'am. We are actually the two mines rescue teams, the Dickenson Russell Coal Company and Paramont, which is owned by our parent company. We are the state designated teams for the State of Virginia. MS. SILVEY: I was going to --- that's what --- I'm glad you said that. I was going to ask you in terms of Virginia. I know that different states have different relationships. I mean, we just came from Utah, and actually Utah doesn’t have any state teams. And I know that Pennsylvania's situation is different from Kentucky, because Kentucky their teams are all state employees. Pennsylvania uses like a combination, and they use members from some of their mines. And so in a way I guess they are like state-sponsored teams. But what about Virginia, does Virginia have any that are state employee teams? MR. COMPTON: We don’t have any teams that are actually state employees. I believe that our chief division of mines has tried to meet with --- MS. SILVEY: That's right. MR. COMPTON: --- officials --- MS. SILVEY: We have met with Virginia. That's right. MR. COMPTON: --- and offer suggestions about us and other teams to be designated as state employees as such as they are covering for mine rescue. We did notify the State of Virginia with the passing of the MINER Act that if they could --- December 15th of 2007 we will no longer be a state designated team, and we will not be able to offer that service for the State of Virginia. MS. SILVEY: Oh, you did, huh? MR. COMPTON: Yes. MS. SILVEY: Okay. Now, how many mines --- your state designed team, how many mines did you say that you provided the service to for Virginia? MR. COMPTON: I can't give you the exact number, but there was probably about 30-some mines that we actually are --- may not be the primary, but as a back up for those teams. MS. SILVEY: Can you provide that to us before the record closes? MR. COMPTON: I think we can. MS. SILVEY: You did notify them that as of December the 30th? MR. COMPTON: We --- December 15th. MS. SILVEY: I'm sorry. December 15th? MR. COMPTON: Our two teams will no longer be stated designated teams. There's no way with these regulations that we would be able to practice at all those operations. And we're going to be struggling to be able to service our own mine. MS. SILVEY: Okay. Well, this is the kind of information we need. Okay. Well, you just said you notified Virginia that you would no longer be a state designated time. So now with respect to the service that you provide right now, I'm just asking you, not putting you on the spot, are you able to meet the one hour time requirement now? MR. COMPTON: We're going to be very close on being able --- on a couple of operations to be able to meet that. One of the things, I guess, that is not clarified is the travel time. When we talk about travel time in a mountainous terrain, are we talking about winter conditions, are we talking about summer conditions and so forth? And I don’t mean this as disrespectful, but you know, MSHA inspectors when they come to a coal mine are not afforded the opportunity to use a whole lot of common sense. They have to go by the regulations and what it says, and I can see the opportunity for a lot of citations to be written over someone's personal opinion on this type of stuff, on what they consider training and not training and travel times and the number of practices and time and event. I guess to back up and talk about some of the training that we do, we do a lot of additional training. All of our teams do. I know that in Virginia particularly spend time at the MSHA academy going through the fire training and so forth. These are extra training if we do it on our own. We don’t need to be mandated to do this, but for instance if you put in 30 hours training one week, in one month and then if you don’t meet the requirement for the next month at these individual mines, does that not mean you're adequate trained? I see a bigger opportunity just for a lot of citations to be written for no reason. MS. SILVEY: And that's not the purpose. I don’t think that was the purpose of the MINER Act, and that's not the purpose of us issuing a proposal and why we are here today. And, you know, maybe I'm going out on a limb a little bit, but you definitely hit the nail on the head. One of the main things to do is in crafting the regulation is to try to put some common sense in the regulation when you do it in the first place, rather than trying to have it subject to a lot of different interpretations and that kind of thing. Sometimes that --- you know, it's not a perfect world and sometimes that's not the case. You know, you can't do that all the time, but --- and as I said earlier we are somewhat constrained by the MINER Act, but to the best of our --- my ability, I speak for myself, I'm going to try to see that we can kind of try to craft these regulations so that they reflect some of the needs and concerns of the mine rescue team community, which is, what, this is our second hearing here today. And we've heard some of these sort of same concerns from the people out west. Although quite honestly probably more elaborated out west because they are dealing with greater distances and that type of thing. MR. KRAVITZ: You mentioned at the beginning of your testimony that this series of regulations would disqualify you as a mine rescue team member. Just considering the two mines in your particular company could you be specific as to why that would occur? MR. COMPTON: Well, it's for different reasons. For one, the amount of time that would have to be taken away from my operation. You know, there's no way that I could be able to spend that much time having to travel to all these different ---. MR. KRAVITZ: Just considering the two mines in your company. MR. COMPTON: Well, I didn’t say two mines, it's two teams. We have --- actually I'm a member of a composite team. We actually have members from three different underground coal mines, but we also are as under the new regs would be considered, I guess, a contract team because of the fact that we back up one of our sister company's operations which has got four or five mines in it. So, you know, you're talking about seven or eight coal mines that you're trying to cover for --- as primary for one and as a back up for the other. MS. SILVEY: So you actually are a member of a mine site team, a composite team and maybe a contract team? MR. COMPTON: It's not a mine site team, it's a composite team --- MS. SILVEY: Oh, it's a composite --- okay. MR. COMPTON: --- and a contract team --- MS. SILVEY: And a contract team. Okay. MR. COMPTON: --- as under the guidelines because we serve back up. MR. KRAVITZ: Basically the requirement to train at each one of these separate mines, that's the thing you had said about ---? MR. COMPTON: Yes, the amount of time to have to train and how it's going to be interpreted, the amount of time at each one of these operations and the number of visits. MR. KRAVITZ: Right. But that's the only concern that you have difficulty in meeting? MR. COMPTON: I guess right now, yes. Of course, as far as the state designated program, you know, there's many other mines that we are actually serving as support for. MS. SILVEY: You're going to provide that number to us --- MR. COMPTON: Yes. MS. SILVEY: --- before the record closes? Right. Okay. MR. KRAVITZ: Thank you. MR. KALICH: Are there other teams in Virginia other than the three that provide the service? MR. COMPTON: Yes, there are other teams. MR. KALICH: How many? MR. COMPTON: I'm not sure right now. I think we have seven or eight teams. There may be a member in the audience that would be able to answer that question better than I can. MR. KALICH: So it's not --- what I'm getting at is some of those teams could provide coverage for the mines that they're currently not in the program that provide the coverage? MR. COMPTON: You know, I can't speak for the State of Virginia, but I can tell you this, that we have had meetings trying to solve the program. The problem is that it equates to Virginia, and our chief division of mines did travel to Washington and tried to make interested parties to try to work this out. He did try to get commitment from several or all the teams in the State of Virginia to come on board as a state designated program. And, you know, if we could get some variance, I guess, on the amount of training time required at each of these operations and so forth, but it's not a quick fix. MR. KALICH: How many mines from your team provide coverage for now since you're no longer part of state program? MR. COMPTON: Right now as the gentleman spoke earlier we are looking at seeing how the regs are going to unfold, and we will be a composite team for the three underground mines we have right now. But we will also serve as a back up, and I can't give you the exact number of four or five different mines. But, you know, everything is going to have to be looked at different on what the requirements are going to come down to be. And we don’t have a solution, we don’t have an answer right now on how that's going to unfold. MR. KALICH: So is --- the requirement that you train at each particular mine, is that the major sticking point --- MR. COMPTON: I think it is. MR. KALICH: --- to providing the coverage? MR. COMPTON: That is a major sticking point, that you have to train in each individual mine and how much time is going to be required there at each individual mine and all these visits. MR. KALICH: In your comments that you submit did you tell us what you think would be adequate training to provide coverage at these other mines so we have that? MR. COMPTON: I can do that, but as I stated earlier what we have been doing in the past has been satisfactory and there's not been a problem with it. We're trying to fix something that is not broke. MS. SILVEY: Well, one of the things you said that was kind of curious --- not curious, I was interested in, you mentioned I wrote down rotation of members. And if you would just go into a little detail as to --- you know, if they rotate at the mine service. I mean, I'm not putting words in your mouth either. MR. COMPTON: Okay. I understand. MS. SILVEY: But every three months or every --- I mean, every four, every quarter or every six months or whatever, but if you would just put a little specifics on that I'd appreciate that. MR. COMPTON: Basically what I'm talking about, I don’t see a need for the entire team to have to travel to each one of these mines. MS. SILVEY: Yeah. No, exactly. MR. COMPTON: And if we could split up and have two members go to three different operations and meet with those people that are the key people at the operation and then rotate those people we're still going to be able to ---. MS. SILVEY: Yeah, if you would just write that up for how --- couple of sentences, two or three, a paragraph. That'll be helpful. Okay. Anybody? Thank you very much. MR. COMPTON: Thank you. MS. SILVEY: Okay. That's Mr. Charles and Mr. Compton, and they were the only people signed up. And, I guess --- is there anybody else in the room who wishes ---? Yes, sir. MR. FIELDS: My name is Andy Fields. I work for United Coal Company. We don’t currently have ---. MS. SILVEY: You're being drafted now. MR. FIELDS: My name is Andy Fields, F-I-E-L-D-S. I work for United Coal Company. I'm the safety manager. We currently do not have mine rescue teams, but we are in the process of setting up teams. I'd like a little bit of a clarification on the definition of Section 49.20 of the requirements for all coal mines on two mine rescue teams. When you read that item (b) says, team members shall meet the following as definition for mine site team where it says should be training conducted at the large mines, composite team, mine rescue team coverage. And 3(i) says, participate in mine rescue training at each covered mine, at least annually or semi-annually and small mines. I'm reading very fast. Item three says, a contract team. 3(ii) says, participate in mine rescue training at a covered, large mine at least quarterly and at a covered small mine. It doesn’t say each. State-sponsored team members who are state employees and participate in mine rescue training at a covered mine, not each covered mine. Well, my question is, if I have a contract team or a state-sponsored team does it require each mine that they covered when it says A, covered mines or, A --- is that A or is that A or all? MS. SILVEY: I think it should have --- no, I'm here speaking. It should have said each, yes. MR. FIELDS: I understand that, but it says what it says. MS. SILVEY: I understand, but you asked for clarification. That should have been each. MR. FIELDS: Well, another thing ---. MS. SILVEY: I understand. MR. FIELDS: Another statement that I would --- I've been on mine rescue since 1977. I've been a part of teams that's won national championships, I've been part of teams that have went in and fought fires, I've been part of teams that have recovered bodies, coal miners. I have mine rescue experience. A couple of items here that I'd just like to say. Number one, this one hour time frame is ambigatory. It's --- we got called one day, we did not --- we would not meet the requirement of one hour. We was there within 45 minutes. State police escorted us. We had a plan, we had --- the mine rescue team had set up what we would do if we had to provide help for somebody else. So we made that one hour. That one hour was not the main issue. Second thing I'd like to say is, I've been around mine rescue all my life and the one thing that this community has very well said, you don’t want to do anything to harm mine rescue as it is. My biggest fear right now is I have 200 employees. To provide two teams would be a minimum of 12 people. With the current turnover rate that I have at the coal mine, which includes mine rescue team members, it would behoove me to have at least 15 to 18 people on my team to make sure that I've got 12 at any given time. It starts getting into the point where it's not going to be voluntary, it's going to be mandatory. I'm going to have to have people on this team to satisfy these regulations that really don’t want to be there. I've got to satisfy those regulations, and I don’t think that's good for mine rescue. I got one more comment. I think I wrote it down here. That's all I have. One other comment to comment on a cover team and the impact that when we mandatory people to be mine rescue team members. MS. SILVEY: So you're in the process of setting up mine rescue team, but you said the one hour is not going to be a problem you said? MR. FIELDS: Well, I'd have to comply with that, but I'm just saying that's --- there's teams out there right now that would provide help, and they would not be able to qualify. You know, you all have asked questions about state teams in Kentucky and state teams in Virginia, and those are the same teams that qualify for MSHA regulations right now. There is some differences between the state regulations and the MSHA regulations, primarily one will be the one hour time limit. I think we should grandfather existing teams, I think that we shouldn't throw those out. In the State of Kentucky, one of the biggest resources we have is our state mine rescue teams, and they are familiar with all of their mines, they're in them every day. There's somewhere every day, and they have apparatuses. They have the facilities, they have the knowledge to do these mines and they have the knowledge of these mines. And if we're going to maintain who to train mine rescue teams throwing 20-some --- throwing several teams out the window is not good. That's all I have. MS. SILVEY: Okay. MR. KALICH: You said with a police escort you made it in 45 minutes. I'm thinking, you know, without a police escort you couldn’t have met the one hour, is that what you meant? MR. FIELDS: Yes. MR. KALICH: You still could have --- you could not meet the hour without a police escort? MR. FIELDS: Yeah, that's --- we was there within a hour. Matter of fact, there's people in this room that was there within that hour, other teams. MS. HUTCHISON: With the police escort? MR. FIELDS: I don't know if they had police escort or not, but they would not meet this one hour time frame. Thank you. MS. SILVEY: Thank you. MS. HUTCHISON: Thank you. MS. SILVEY: Is there anybody else who wishes to speak? Yes, sir. MR. XANDERS: Thank you. My name is Greg Xanders, and I probably will have to spell that. It's X-A-N-D-E-R-S. I'm with Peabody Coal Company, attorney specialist. Been in the mining industry for over 30 years, and involved with mine rescue for over 20 years. Basically I just wanted to reiterate from Indiana standpoint, because it sounds like you're in a learning process here today, about the status in the State of Indiana. Now, we're fortunate in Indiana that the coal-like rock lays from one end to the other within one hour, okay, traveling about 60 miles an hour. So that's not a big issue, but with the six mines in Indiana the definition of state teams. Now, when you talk about a state team, which we still refer --- we have a state team. We have actually equipment wise two state teams in Indiana, equipment wise, but getting the members is difficult. Now, I'm with Peabody and so we have our own team. We have an in- mine site team for the mine, but then like my colleagues ahead of me here was talking about, we provide coverage because mine rescue knows no boundaries economically when it comes to covering other mines. So we cover other mines with their coverage, okay, and we can easily get to them within one hour. But the state team in Indiana much like my understanding in Illinois is just the state being equipment. There's no state employees. MS. SILVEY: And Pennsylvania is sort of like that, too. MR. XANDERS: Exactly. MS. SILVEY: Right. MR. XANDERS: So therefore that really --- when you're talking about a state team you're talking about composites or a contract team is what you're talking about. MS. SILVEY: Or state-sponsored if you want to bring in ---. MR. XANDERS: Yeah. And that's what we're ---. MS. SILVEY: I'm just, you know ---. MR. XANDERS: We need some clarity in terms of what really is a state team and such. Again, there's only six mines, six underground coal mines in Indiana. I'm using that because it's a smaller model compared to Virginia or Kentucky that you've just been talking about. But with those six mines four of them are larger mines, and I'm going to use the words larger and smaller. Obviously, small has a definition, but smaller we typically consider a one-unit coal mine. Okay? So it may be more than 36 employees, but it obviously is not a real large mine by most standards. And so therefore they can probably afford to have a couple of employees go and participate on a state team. They're probably not going to --- their members are not going to come and participate on a Peabody team or an Alliance Coal Company team because then you get into other employees and such as that. So they're pretty well going to have to be that state team. So my point though is really it's the small word, at. And I realize you're hampered there because Congress when they did the MINER Act mandated and used the word at. Okay? My example will be essentially then the state team, state-sponsored team, which is either going to be a composite or a contract team and our team and possibly Alliance Coal Company in the State of Indiana will be a contract team. All right. Then they'll have to visit those mines four times a year or possibly two times a year at the mine. Now, the difficulty with that is that --- which my colleagues have just mentioned is, you know, I've done a lot of training. To maximize your training a lot of the little mines that you go visit, smaller mines, they don’t have adequate training facilities, so you're going to spend approximately one hour getting there. Okay? And by law you can spend ten minutes there because in ten minutes you can cover the ventilation, the operation of the mine and then you spend one hour traveling back from the mine. So if you have to go as a contract coverage for that particular mine you're going to waste eight hours a year of just traveling to and from the mine, a mine. So in the State of Indiana alone on a smaller scale, currently as you well know six days is all that's required annually for training. Okay. Last year we trained 26 days, which is pretty modest compared to a lot of teams that participate in the national contest. We're looking to increase that to 43 days. I'm just talking about our own team. Okay. We're talking to increase that to 43 days. If we still continue to provide coverage for some of those other mines in the state, you know, as a back up to, say, the state-sponsored team then we're looking at 19 days, almost half of our budgeted time of just going to the mine sites. What I propose, if you could get around the word at, is there's other ways that you can train. You can have members of that mine come to --- we have a training facility, and actually the state team trains at our facility as well as the Black Beauty Peabody team trains there. But you're set up with practice fields, you're set up with equipment and all these other things. And even though it's important to go to the mines we do rotate those when we go to the mines because it is important to know how to get to the mine and how the layout of the mine is, but to do that four times a year, as my colleague ahead of me mentioned, I don’t know is beneficial. Okay? But what is important you could have members --- and I don’t know how you mandate that in the law, come to your training facilities and accomplish essentially the same thing by laying out maps and explaining the layout of your mine and blowing exhausting systems, your fans and et cetera. Okay? And therefore you'll maximize your training much more than you will going to a facility and walking into sometimes pretty limited facilities. They may be an office type trailer, so you walk out of the pitch, you go underground maybe and you still --- it's a good idea to go underground and we would rotate it around so that those six mines and the two times a year we go to mine A, then mine B, then mine C and then mine D. But to have to do that under the current requirements will be a pretty good burden. And like my predecessors here, it's sometimes then a company will then say, well, that's a pretty big burden and even though we'll go through in an emergency, but I don’t know if contractually we can cover that. That's my concern. I did want to also reiterate their comments about the lack of volunteers. The mine that I'm --- actually I trained for two mines that make up a composite for one mine and a mine site team for the other mine, out of 200 --- over, well over, 300 employees, we currently have seven members on the team, and I'm in the process of getting a few more. It is a real problem to get volunteers. We've talked about having people just assigned to be on the team and then you get into questions, are they just going to be on the team from a compliance standpoint or are they going to be on the team from a competition standpoint or are they going to be on the team if we have an actual emergency? So those are some real concerns, but that is true. I have seven members on the team and I have five applicants, and, again, people get sick, people decide to be off. And our good mine rescue members is a concern is older like myself, not old but are older, and we do want to get some of the young folks into the mine rescue, and it's not happening. You'll get a trickle of a person here and there. Why? Your question earlier. I don’t know. Why is blood driving the Red Cross down? I just think the overall volunteer attitude in this country is less, but that's a separate issue. But they're right on in the fact that the lack of volunteers in mine rescue is a real concern. I thank the committee for letting me make my comments. MS. SILVEY: Thank you. I want to ask you just one thing and that is, the states --- and for lack of a better word right now, I will stay state-sponsored team because you're exactly right there. We are finding out there are different configurations. Quite honestly I'm not sure that there's any other quite like Kentucky in terms of the state employees make up the team. Most of them, I would probably say are like state-sponsored that may take members from the mine. MR. XANDERS: Correct. MS. SILVEY: In Indiana how do they train now? MR. XANDERS: Actually the state team which consists of members from like four of the mines --- MS. SILVEY: Of the mines. MR. XANDERS: --- in the state, --- MS. SILVEY: Okay. MR. XANDERS: --- they come to our training facility at Peabody and train with the Peabody team. MS. SILVEY: Oh, okay. MR. XANDERS: So actually those two teams train together. Again, geographically we're very small, so therefore even --- there's a third team ---. There's only three teams in the state, and so the third team, Alliance Coal Company, they also train with us from time to time and then former members of the Indiana state. So we have an advantage there, but even at that I can appreciate the burden that they're going to go through in Kentucky and Virginia because it's a burden on us and we got a small house. The rest of the regulations I don’t have much of a problem with, and I really believe in training but it's --- to be mandated --- and as one of my colleagues here just mentioned, when it comes down to a compliance type question you'll get an inspector. I mean, if we'll argue about one part per million of CO, we'll obviously argue about one hour of training, so ---. MS. SILVEY: I appreciate that really. I mean, I wouldn’t let you go without my saying that I appreciate exactly what you're saying, and we do not --- and as I said earlier, you know, you don’t want the regulations that you craft to result in that type. That's not the goal, that's not what you're looking for. MR. XANDERS: But, again, if I could reiterate, when you do something with the Act and allow these teams to have the flexibility that they need to provide proper training that would be the real goal there. MS. HUTCHISON: I have a question. You said that there --- that this --- okay. Indiana, six underground coal mine, four larger, two smaller, three mine rescue teams, one from Alliance, from one Peabody and one state-sponsored. So the rest of the equipment for the state-sponsored team is being unused now? MR. XANDERS: Well, they maintain 12 apparatuses and all the equipment as well as we maintain 12, and the Alliance team maintains at least six and probably more equipment. So we have tons of --- I have more equipment than people to put on them. MS. HUTCHISON: Okay. But you're still just talking three times, not --- MR. XANDERS: Yes. MS. HUTCHISON: --- two state-sponsored? MR. XANDERS: Well, the one time the State of Indiana had two teams and members because they have the equipment, but now they can only get enough members for one team. MS. HUTCHISON: Okay. MR. XANDERS: Yes, yes. And actually to make sure you have the correct information there, of those six mines I would categorize three of them as large. Larger mines in the sense that they are three, four production units where three of the mines are one or two unit mines, so there's much smaller. MS. HUTCHISON: Thank you. MR. XANDERS: Thank you. MS. SILVEY: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Xanders. Is there anybody else? Yes, sir. MR. MCCORKLE: My name is Don McCorkle, M-C-C-O-R-K-L-E. I just have a point to make because all my colleagues have pretty much hit on the main parts, a hypothetical situation. I work for the Department of Labor for the Indiana Bureau Mines and trained with Mr. Xanders, our composite state team. With the new regulations, if I'm reading this right, a contracted team would have to visit each mine site once each quarter; correct? MS. SILVEY: Uh-huh (yes). MR. MCCORKLE: So if we have six mines they would have to make a trip to each mine, so they'd have to make 24 trips a year in these six mine sites. MS. SILVEY: Uh-huh (yes). MR. MCCORKLE: So we have three mine rescue teams, one state which we cover all mines, and we would like to contract Black Beauty or Alliance Coal. Let's say because of these stipulations they don’t want to make --- let's just say for the safety ---. Let's say they don’t cover them, they cover each other. Then the state would have to come up with another team from MSHA law to have two teams coverage for their remaining mines. Then we go to the volunteer aspect. If I had one mine rescue team and the mines have to provide me people to make up my other mine rescue team what if I can't get volunteers for that? Then I've got four mines that cannot have two team coverage, so the MSHA inspector can walk in and say, your operation is shut down because you don’t have two mine rescue teams. So I don’t see how we can physically go into the mine. I've met Mike before, but say, Mike, you're going be on mine rescue team. How can you do that? I mean, how can I force a gentleman to be on --- to volunteer, not volunteer but make him, you know, --- MS. SILVEY: No, I understand. MR. MCCORKLE: --- compete or train for a mine rescue team. So that's kind of the problem we have. Yes, ma'am? MS. HUTCHISON: I was going to say, but you draw members on your teams from the existing mines, would that not make them composite teams? MR. MCCORKLE: Technically, yes. We are --- they are trained by the state. We take two members from each mine that makes up the state team. We don’t have state employees to make up a team. Does that answer your question? MS. SILVEY: Yeah. MR. MCCORKLE: That was the only --- I was just trying to make a point. MS. SILVEY: No, I understand. MR. MCCORKLE: You run into that problem because ---. MS. SILVEY: Yeah, you do your teams just like Pennsylvania does. MR. MCCORKLE: Correct. MS. SILVEY: That's what happens in Pennsylvania. MR. MCCORKLE: But we're either a state-sponsored or a composite team, --- MS. SILVEY: That's right. MR. MCCORKLE: --- but so is Black Beauty. They're a composite team, but once I ask them to help us they become a contract team, so that changes the things from two to four. So you're ---. MS. SILVEY: Yeah. MR. MCCORKLE: Anyhow, that's the point I want to make. MS. SILVEY: No, I --- yeah, I can see, you know ---. I can see from talking to you all some of these configurations depended on how one person wants to look at it and you might look at it a little differently than me. You know, you may call it one thing and I may call it something else. Yeah, I understand. Yeah. MR. MCCORKLE: That's it. MS. SILVEY: Yeah. Thank you. MR. MCCORKLE: Thank you. MS. SILVEY: You can imagine what they're asking me. Is there anybody else in the audience who wishes to speak? Okay. So we are taking a ten-minute break, and we'll pick up after the break, ten minutes. SHORT BREAK TAKEN MS. SILVEY: Before I reconvene the hearing I would like to say, welcome and thank you. We have a professor from the University of Cincinnati and some of his graduate students here. So I want to say that we welcome them and appreciate that they are here and took an interest in this hearing. And, in fact, I think it's good for people to see, you know, sometimes maybe they don’t --- maybe they can be pleasantly surprised. I was trying to think of a little humor, but I guess when it comes to the federal government there's not a lot of humor you can --- not a lot of humor in things you could say, even working for the federal government. But I do think it's good for people to see the American public, to see the government at work. And this is going to come out sounding a little self serving, but I think that here today what we want to do to the best of our abilities is to take the comments and concerns into consideration and see if we can craft a final rule that takes into consideration and that's reflective of those comments and concerns so that people do have a sense that the government does work and that it does work in the manner that it's supposed to work. So now we will continue on with the Mine Safety Health Administration's hearing on mine rescue team proposed regulations, and our next speaker is going to --- the floor is now yours. MR. FARLER: Thank you very much. I wasn’t going to speak today, but I guess I kind of stepped in again. My name is Pearl Farler, F-A-R-L-E-R, and I'm a member of the James River mine rescue team. I'm now a trainer. I've been in mine rescue since 1981. Our team has been very successful. We had five national championships, last national we placed second to the Peabody team. But the things that I have to say the teams have not been the problem at the disasters that we've had. They have reported there timely. When they get there they're ready to go. The problems have been --- and I'm not being disrespectful or anything like that, but the problem has been with MSHA, the state and the company arguing about who's in charge. When they send the mine rescue teams underground the rescue teams are there. They're ready to go, but the decision has to come from the command center for those rescue teams to go do their thing. It's not how the rescue team performs their function. They do that and they do that effortlessly. They really do. They're really good at it. Our team has responded to quite a few, South Mountain, the fire down in Tennessee, the fire --- actually in a train tunnel, also with the Darby explosion. The teams that responded to the Darby explosion were kind of criticized by MSHA about the response and how the expiration went and things like that, but if you look back on it a man was saved from the Darby explosion. The other men were already dead. Had they not done what they did that man might not have made it out. The Kentucky state teams, they're well trained, they're very capable. I don’t want to see them where they cannot respond and cannot cover miners. They are very capable of doing what they need to do. However, Kentucky state teams have different protocol than MSHA guidelines have in expiration and they have different outlooks on it, which is not to say it's a bad thing, but obviously it worked at Darby. I've been in mine rescue going under the MSHA protocol since 1981, starting to look at the state protocol now. I have reservations about some of the things, but it works. It works, so just because it's different doesn’t mean that it's not right, so these teams are --- and they are very well equipped. They have the equipment, they have the people to do this. Mr. Kalich --- I believe I'm pronouncing that right. Mr. Kalich, you asked how many teams would the state have to add to meet the training requirements. Well, I can't answer that because I'm not a state employee, but the teams are made up of state inspectors and analysts. These people go to coal mines and do inspections and do analyst work and things like that. This is in addition to their jobs. If they have to go to every coal mine in the state of Kentucky two times a year they can't do it. They are not mine rescue specific. Okay. That is an addition to their job, so they just can't do that. They don’t have the staff to do that. Another thing, the responsible person. The responsible person most of the time is a very qualified mine foreman or mine superintendent that can run that coal mine, he knows what he's doing. He can get a mine evacuation going. He can start the mine evacuation, he can contact personnel, he can deploy firefighting equipment, he knows where it's at, but as far as setting up a command center directing firefighting personnel, directing mine rescue teams, establishing a fresh air base, deploy rescue teams, gas sampling and analysis with what? There's no regulation that tells us that we have to be able to do an analysis of gas that's coming from that mine. We don’t have the equipment. He can't set up security. Now, he may communicate appropriate information, but the way I look at this communicating appropriate information of the emergency you better have somebody that knows that they do not say something wrong like we had in the Sago where they said we've got 12 men alive. All of them are alive. Okay? You make one slip up like that that is very detrimental to what's going on, so you have to have a person that's well informed and the responsible person is not the person to do all those things. He may be able to do some of them. He's already required to do some of those, but he cannot --- you cannot put him in charge of the command center, direct firefighting personnel, mine rescue teams. You just can't do that to him. He's already overwhelmed as it is. So another thing on the rescue teams, I have two surface members. Two surface miners are members of our rescue team. They are very competent people, they are engineers, they know what's going on, but one of them has never --- he's practically never been in an underground mine except for when we go in and practice for our training underground. He's learning a lot, he knows what's going on, but I would take him anywhere. I would take him with me. He's a good man, but according to these regulations if he don’t work in an underground coal mine he can't be on our rescue team. So we need to, again, make some kind of a provision like it was stated before that these people can be grandfathered in. If you have a rescue team now you should be able to keep those people. And the number of people on rescue team, if you have to have two members per mine to cover --- our mine rescue team covers almost all of James River coal. We are spread out, we've got six different companies that we have under the James River umbrella. We cover five of them, five of the different mines, the different companies. One of them is Bell County Coal. They are --- they straddle Kentucky, Tennessee. The other one we have is in Indiana, and they're covered by the Indiana state team right now. We cover the rest of them. We are within the one hour. Man, it's close on some of them, but we are within the one hour but of course that's mandated by Kentucky state anyhow, one hour. The other people and other states may be spread out enough to where they cannot do that without adding stations. As a matter of fact, we're adding a station to our Pikeville mines to cover ourselves on that, so we --- our company themselves have to add one station in addition to the one that we have now. And our other two mines according to how these hearings come out may or may not be covered, so we might have to do something else on that. Some of the things that I have to ask you is, will MSHA accept the Kentucky state expiration protocol in this hearings and is that different or are they going to be mandated to go with the MSHA protocol? MS. SILVEY: Well, that's interesting because I was going to ask you. You said that Kentucky state team --- first of all, in terms of you asking me any specific question about how this is going to come out, I can tell everybody right now, I can't tell --- I can't say to you how the regulation is going to come out. I know most people who've been involved in rulemaking know that. The comment period ends on the 9th of November, and then we will take all these comments and testimony and craft the final work. So it would be premature for me to say what MSHA is going to do, and even if I felt like --- and people who know me know that I sort of do some of these issues. If I felt like I had a good idea of where I want it to come out, but even if I did I can't say because my boss is the one who really makes the policy call, Mr. Stickler, --- MR. FARLER: I understand. MS. SILVEY: --- and the Secretary of Labor, Ms. Chao. So I can't say how they're going to come out, but I want to ---. When you said --- and maybe I shouldn't --- but I will guarantee you that we are going to try to be mindful of comments. I said that. I was going to ask you and maybe I should know this, but I don’t and I'm going to ask. When you said Kentucky teams have different protocols, different from MSHA what exactly --- when you say protocols what exactly do you mean by protocols? Do you mean the requirements, do you mean the procedures or do you mean both? MR. FARLER: Both really. Expiration procedures is the big thing. MS. SILVEY: Okay. MR. FARLER: Okay? The Kentucky state they kind of want to get to the section. MS. SILVEY: Okay. I see. MR. FARLER: They want to get to where they think the men are in the shortest amount of time. MS. SILVEY: MSHA has ---. MR. FARLER: MSHA wants to tie across behind --- go through the whole mine. MS. SILVEY: Yeah, that --- yeah, I couldn’t answer that. MR. FARLER: I understand that. MS. SILVEY: You understand, yeah. MR. FARLER: I guess I stated this wrong. I'm not looking for an answer. MS. SILVEY: Yeah, answer right now. MR. FARLER: I'm looking --- these are questions that I ---. MS. SILVEY: You want to address? MR. FARLER: Yes, yes. MS. SILVEY: I did want to ask you though when you were talking about the Kentucky state teams, and I gather from what you said they did respond at Darby? MR. FARLER: Yes. MS. SILVEY: They responded at Darby, and for the Kentucky state teams. One of the things I think is my understanding, and you correct me if I'm wrong, the Kentucky state teams don’t train at the covered mines now, at the mines they serve? MR. FARLER: No, they don’t. MS. SILVEY: How do they train now? MR. FARLER: Just like our ---. MS. SILVEY: We heard some of it. Right, right. MR. FARLER: As you said, they come to different mines. As a matter of fact, they've come to some of our mines and practiced in our mines. We provide practice sites for them, and we help them as much as we can. And they also do MERD exercises. We have participated in their MERD exercises. The one down in Pikesville was excellent. It was great training. We came out with a lot of new experiences and a lot of things we need to work on on our team, but the --- what you get on these MERD exercises especially is team working with team. Okay? In mine rescue contests teams don’t work with teams. MS. SILVEY: No, they won't --- you want to beat that other team. MR. FARLER: I want to beat that other team. MS. SILVEY: That's right, yeah. MR. FARLER: And, you know, I don’t share a lot of our little things that we do that makes the team click. I don’t share that with other teams, and sometimes that's bad especially when you're working together --- MS. SILVEY: That's right. MR. FARLER: --- at a disaster. That means --- time means everything. MS. SILVEY: And I probably should have started out by saying to you, congratulations on your own excellent and successful service that your team has had in the many years you've been involved in this. MR. FARLER: Thank you very much. MS. SILVEY: One of the things I want to say and the other --- several other speakers mentioned this. It's funny how more and more testimony you take you hear some of the same comments, but you were talking about what the responsible person. And you said responsible person can't organize the command center, rectify --- and you went on down. And, you know, it's something said to me. You know, they're making sense there, and I said, you got a lot --- I got to read this, but I want to clarify so everybody knows. The regulation doesn’t require that the responsible person do those things. If you read under there from rule 1 to 11, there are 11 things under there. It says that the responsible person shall be trained annually in these things, and training shall include knowledge in the following. So that's training. I wouldn’t disagree at all that we would require responsible person of a particular mine rescue team to come out and organize a command center. We know generally speaking, and I don’t want to speak out of school, the command center is sort of like --- the decision is sort of joint, just like you said, between MSHA, the state and et cetera. So this provision says training shall include knowledge of the following. Now, you know, if there is some way --- I mean, obviously, we follow that. That could be some simulated ways or some ways that persons could be trained in these types of things. And if there are problems with how or people to be trained in them then you have to let us know that, but I wanted to clarify that. MR. FARLER: Well, I understand that, but if you look up in (a), A75.1501(a). MS. SILVEY: Right. MR. FARLER: It says that that responsible person designated by the mine operator are taking charge during mine emergencies, involved in fire explosion or gas and water inundation. MS. SILVEY: Right. MR. FARLER: If he's in charge he has to do all these things. MS. SILVEY: Well, it does say take charge, --- MR. FARLER: Yes, it does. MS. SILVEY: --- I wouldn’t jump to it saying that take charge meant that this person has to do all of these. This says --- this one specifically says training, but I'll look at that and make sure that it's ---. MR. FARLER: If I was the inspector I'd look for that. MS. SILVEY: I don’t know. I won't comment. MR. FARLER: Okay. MS. SILVEY: I'll keep my comment to myself on that, but I'll look at that and make sure, you know --- to make sure that it's clarified as best as it can be. MR. FARLER: I have one other thing and then I'm finished. MSHA has a mine rescue training manual. Okay? And, again, this is a general question. Will that rescue training manual be updated to meet these regulations and what protocol to follow and things like that? That's a general thing on that. So I don’t understand what actually promulgated the mine rescue rules changes that we have here. If the rescue teams have done nothing that hindered any of the rescue attempts or anything like that, why are the rescue teams being --- why are we in question? I mean, that's what I'm thinking about on these rules here. Now, some of the equipment --- and you'll cover that. MS. SILVEY: I'll cover that later, yeah. MR. FARLER: That's --- I fully agree, but with this it's just ---. Where is the problem? MS. SILVEY: Yeah. No, I --- and I hope that I have ---. I hope that I have adequately stated this for everybody, that this proposal would implement the MINER Act, and you all know the MINER Act was passed by Congress and signed by the president June 15th, '06. And once, you know, you have a law in the book, we are MSHA and we have to try to --- and it says that we should issue regulations within a specified time period, and that time period is December 15th of '07. And that's what this proposal and these hearings and this rulemaking is all about. But I hear y'alls concerns, and I hear --- I mean, as I said, we heard some of these same concerns in Salt Lake on Tuesday. Yeah, I appreciate it, sir. MR. FARLER: That's all I have. MS. SILVEY: One of the things I think --- and if anybody wants to come up and join Mr. Farler you can feel free to do so. One of the things we heard several people say that --- and we are mindful of it, that you didn’t need to train at every covered mine. And some people made suggestions, some people talked about rotation, and I think as a follow up either right now or in your comments, you know, we need it for the record. I'd like you to specifically address the alternatives to training at each covered mine, the impact that you see in it if a positive or negative impact of not training at each of the covered mines during the time period required, and --- is there anything else? MR. MACLEOD: You covered it pretty much, yeah. Yeah. Just other ways of approaching that issue. Be creative, I guess, is what we're looking at. MR. FARLER: Well, really I don’t see the problem in that because, again, mine rescue teams have responded and they've done what they needed to do. Even if they haven't been at that mine before, before they go underground they attend a briefing session. They go over everything. They're limited to the thousand foot intervals by the MSHA expiration protocols. If you go thousand foot at a time you can cover it pretty well in 10, 15 minutes on which way the ventilation is supposed to be going, where the belt entry is, this is the intake, this is the return, this is what we had in there, this is their equipment. I mean, it doesn’t take a whole lot of time. I don’t think in the past that the rescue teams have had a problem with that, you know, because they are --- they brief before they go --- are briefed before they go underground by the command center. Command center basically tells you what they want you to do anyhow. All you do is do it, and you do it right. MR. MACLEOD: Thank you. MS. SILVEY: I do want --- for the prior speakers, you, Mr. Farler. I want everybody --- if you feel like the way with your current set-up, the method of your current set-up, you can't meet the one hour ground travel time either by way of --- either if that'll mean a change in teams, a change in stations, configuration together, if you would provide us with that specific information before the record closes. Yeah, everybody if you would do that. Okay. Thank you. We appreciate it. Okay. Thank you. Is there anybody else who wishes to testify? Anybody else, any more comments? Okay. Okay. MR. KENDRICK: My name is Gerald Kendrick, K-E-N-D-R-I-C-K. I've been involved in mine rescue since 1975 and approaching --- nearing the end of my career, but I've been an active captain of the mine rescue team. I've been in training in several --- many years of teams as well as being manager of safety. The one thing that I really want to speak with when we're talking about small mines, we currently have five company mines and we have --- actually right now we have six contract mines, but we have had as many as ten. And when I'm talking about contract mines we're talking about small mines, one section mines from 10, 15 people working at those mines. So we're talking small, very small. Most of those people operate on a shoestring, and we do provide mine rescue coverage for those people, and in that regard I guess our team would be considered contract mine, contract teams for company mines. Both teams are actually composite teams. MS. SILVEY: The other teams are composite teams? MR. KENDRICK: Yes, ma'am. They're composed of people from our safety department, engineering, our central shop. They have actually been underground miners, but they work as mechanics and repair underground equipment in our central shops. We also have two people on the surface who have been underground miners and no longer work underground. They've been mine foreman, electricians and those kind of things, so we have a diverse group of people on mine rescue teams. The thing that --- and the way I read the regulations primarily is that being a composite team we'll have to have one to two members from our company mines. And in that regard we have two large mines with over 36 people and the other three mines have 15 or less people, so that's our five company mines. My concern, I guess, basically is do we have to replace current team members with men from one of those particular mines? We have to have one or two people from each one of our covered mines. Are we going to have to replace our experienced team members, those people? We have 14 apparatuses in the mine rescue station. We have 14 team members. MS. SILVEY: So tell me --- you have ---. Forget your --- not forget, but your small contract mines. Let's put them over to the side. MR. KENDRICK: And that's what I was doing, putting them over to the ---. MS. SILVEY: That's right. Let's do that for --- right now. So you have five other mines? MR. KENDRICK: Right. Five company mines. MS. SILVEY: That five company mines that you provide coverage to; right? MR. KENDRICK: Yes, ma'am. MS. SILVEY: You all --- the company owns these mines and you provide coverage to them? MR. KENDRICK: Yes, ma'am. MS. SILVEY: Okay. MR. KENDRICK: You see where I'm coming from? And our team members all come from either the mines or as I'm concerned --- the service departments, engineering division. MS. SILVEY: So if the teams --- the 14 team members now come from just two of the mines? MR. KENDRICK: We have team members from, yeah, just --- the team members other than our service people including myself. I'm a team member believe it or not, 60 years old still active team member. We have two people from one of our mines, one from the other and then most of the other people are from service organizations, our engineering group, our safety group, our shops, those kind of things. And these are people who are underground at all of our locations at some time during the year. We're all underground on occasion, but yet we would be considered an underground miner. And that's some of my concern, I guess, as far as any people come from that, from that aspect of that. Who will replace them? What will we have to do to replace those people, experienced people who have actually participated not only in contests, but in actual situations with people who have no experience. My experience takes --- and you make --- as a reference in the preamble, for a good mine rescue team it makes that reference it takes four to five years to take a group of inexperienced people and make a good mine rescue team from my experience. And I've been doing this, like I said, since 1975. So again, it's one of those things that --- I guess we just have a lot of concerns. What do we do? What do we do as a company? Again, talk about training. If both teams are actually --- each mine be covered semi-annually, which is --- other than our larger mines, you're basically talking 22, 22 to 28 days to cover those locations. It's going to take a lot of time away from them and the jobs that they normally do. MS. SILVEY: Well, I'm going to ask --- I understand what you're saying, so I'm going to ask you the same thing that we asked some of the other speakers. If you would --- and some of them mentioned, that one of the major issues is training at the covered mine. But if you got specific alternatives to what we propose, training that was satisfied and that you think would meet the intent of the law, training at the covered mine for the rotation, but it would be coming from --- now, I'm kind of saying. Coming to a common facility and have people from the covered mines who are knowledgeable in the ventilation as you put up the map and that type of thing, and the escape routes ---. Well, the map would show you. You can go over all that and the direction of the ventilation in the mine and that type of thing, however, if you have alternatives and how often that should be done whether you think then by going through that type of training that the mine rescue team members are appropriately and well --- sufficiently trained. I mean, you --- and I mean, somebody might know better than somebody like you with the many years of mine rescue service who ---. And you've been familiar with the type of training, traditional type of training and so you can ---. I think you can legitimately make the call on whether you think that's appropriate or not. MR. KENDRICK: Again, I just want to reiterate, too, in the state program although our company is not a part of that Virginia state program to cover mine rescue teams, I was in a meeting recently with the chief of the provisional mines. And with a lot of the small operators that do actually cover, and he basically told them that with new regulation effective December the 15th that they probably wouldn't have miners rescue coverage under a state program. We're talking between 30 and 20 mines in southwest Virginia that are small, remote mines, and the majority of them say we don’t have an option. Just close our doors. We're talking probably 450 to 600 jobs if they do that. I'm not saying all of them will. Some of them will try to come up with some alternatives, but a lot of them say we have an alternative, just shut the door. The Virginia program was different things probably any of the other states at all because they did use other teams, other companies' mine rescue team to provide coverage for those. Even that, there's a lot of mines. It's going to be more than one hour away from any mine rescue station, but especially in the area of, like I said ---. MS. SILVEY: In your area? MR. KENDRICK: Right. Southwest Virginia. MS. SILVEY: And see I know you're speaking for your company, but I was going to ask if anybody --- you know, and all these questions go sort of for everybody here, to know the specific impact of the one hour requirement, how many would not meet the one hour requirement? MR. KENDRICK: The reason our company participated is because just the mere fact that we got --- we were a designated team at one time, but we got out of it just from the liability standpoint. Not that we wouldn’t go if we were called. MS. SILVEY: You were a designated state team? MR. KENDRICK: At one time, yes, ma'am, but we dropped out of the program. We've been approached at the end to be that, but with the training requirements --- we just wouldn’t have time to cover that many teams and to make that ---. It's unfortunate, but we just couldn't do it. We couldn’t afford to have people away from their jobs longer than we have to anyway. I had other comments, but I'll send those to you. MS. SILVEY: Make sure you do send them to us. Okay. Thank you very much. MR. KENDRICK: Thank you. MS. SILVEY: Okay. Is there anybody else? Anybody else who wishes to speak? Okay. One. If nobody else wishes to speak then I'm going to conclude this public hearing on the Mine Safety and Health Administration's proposed rule on mine rescue team for underground coal mines. As I do so, I want to reiterate that we appreciate very much your testimony and your comments to us here today, that we --- for those of you who came and did not speak, but came and attended the hearing we appreciate your interests in the rulemaking. And I want to say again because I think that to --- that is it unfortunate that the rules came out and seemed to have been a reflection as some people interpreted it as a negative reflection on mine rescue service. Because as I said from the beginning, we clearly believe that it is necessary and it has been --- provided a meaningful and a life saving service throughout the mining industry, throughout history. So what we're going to try to do when we go back is to take the comment and testimony that we get during this public hearing process and to try to craft a final rule. And granted, we got to give meaning to the MINER Act, and I know that. I'm not so naïve that I don’t know that, but at the same time to maintain the solid and historical purpose of mine rescue team service as voluntary and meaningful and not to do anything that will negatively impact that service. So with that we thank you, again, and I will start the second hearing. So for those of you who are here for the second hearing, I will probably --- strike probably. I will start the second hearing at one o'clock today in this same room. Thank you. * * * * * * * * HEARING CONCLUDED AT 11:30 A.M. * * * * * * * * 2 Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908 Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908 122 Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908 Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908