WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF MSHA * * * * * * * * * IN RE: MAINTENANCE OF INCOMBUSTIBLE CONTENT OF ROCK DUST FEDERAL PUBLIC HEARING * * * * * * * * * BEFORE: PATRICIA SILVEY, Chair Mario Distasio, Member Deborah Green, Member Gregory Fetty, Member Kevin Burns, Member HEARING: Thursday, November 18, 2010 9:00 a.m. LOCATION: Charleston Marriott Town Center 200 Lee Street East Charleston, WV 25301 WITNESSES: Linda Raisovich-Parsons, Mike Harman, Brian Seabolt, Sam Hall, Carl Egnor, Chris Hamilton, James Maynard Reporter: Danielle S. Ohm Any reproduction of this transcript is prohibited without authorization by the certifying agency I N D E X OPENING REMARKS By Chair 3 - 9 STATEMENT By Linda Raisovich-Parons 9 - 12 STATEMENT By Michael Harman 12 - 17 TESTIMONY By Brian Seabolt 17 - 20 TESTIMONY By Sam Hall 20 - 23 TESTIMONY By Carl Egnor 23 - 27 TESTIMONY By Chris Hamilton 27 - 29 TESTIMONY By James Maynard 29 - 30 DISCUSSION AMONG PARTIES 30 - 31 CERTIFICATE 32 P R O C E E D I N G S ------------------------------------------------------ CHAIR: Good morning. My name is Patricia W. Silvey, and I'm the Director of the Mine Safety and Health Administration's Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances. I will be the moderator for this public hearing on MSHA's Emergency Temporary Standard on Maintenance of Incombustible Content of Rock Dust in Underground Coal Mines. On behalf of Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health, Joseph A. Main. I want to welcome all of you to this hearing today. At this point, I'd like to introduce the members of the MSHA panel. To my immediate left is Gregory Fetty, and he's with Coal Mine Safety and Health. To his left, Kevin Burns with the Office of Educational Policy and Development. To my right, Deborah Green with the Office of the Solicitor, a division of Mine Safety and Health, who is the attorney on the project. And to her right, Mario Distasio who is the chief economist in my office. This is the last of four hearings on the Emergency Temporary Standard. As many as you know, the first hearing was in St. Louis, Missouri on October 26, the second hearing in Birmingham, Alabama on October 28, the third hearing was this week, Tuesday, Lexington, Kentucky on November 16. The purpose of these hearings, as many of you know who have participated in MSHA's rule-makings over the years, is to receive information from the public that will help us evaluate requirements in the ETS and develop a final rule that protects miners from hazards associated with coal dust explosions. We will also use the data and information gained from these hearings to help us develop a final rule that responds to the needs and concerns of the mining public, so that the requirements of the final rule can be implemented in the most effective and appropriate manner. The ETS was issued in accordance with section 101(b) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, which I will refer to as the Mine Act. Under section 101(b), the ETS is effective until superseded by a mandatory standard. And in accordance with the Mine Act, the mandatory standard must be issued no later than nine months after publication of the ETS. The ETS also serves as the proposed rule, as many of you know, and commences the regular rulemaking process. Mine operators apply rock dust in underground bituminous coal mines to reduce the explosion potential of coal dust and other dust generated during the mining operation process. Effective rock dust application is essential to protect miners from the potential of a coal dust explosion; or if one occurs, to reduce its severity. MSHA established a standard, based on the Federal Coal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1969, that required Mine operators to maintain at least 80 percent incombustible content of the combined coal dust, rock dust and other dust in return airways. In all other areas of the mine, the combined dust needed to contain at least 65 percent incombustible content. MSHA determined that revising the standard for Maintenance of Incombustible Content of Rock Dust is necessary to immediately protect miners from hazards of coal dust explosions. This determination is based on MSHA's accident investigation reports of mine explosions in intake air courses that involved coal dust. And these reports are embodied in a report by Dubaniewicz 2009. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, or NIOSH's Report of Investigations 9679 by Cashdollar and others, 2010 entitled Recommendations for a New Rock Dusting Standard to Prevent Coal Dust Explosions in Intake Airways; and MSHA's experience and data. MSHA has estimated the economic impact of the ETS and has included a discussion of the costs and benefits in the preamble. As stated earlier, we will use the information provided by you to help us decide how to develop the final rule. The preamble to the ETS discusses the requirements of the ETS and also includes several requests for comment and information. As you address the requirements of the ETS, and any specific requests for comment that we have made, either in your comments to us here today or those sent to us in Arlington, we ask that you please be as specific as possible with respect to the impact on miner safety and health, specific mining conditions and feasibility of implementation. That will be very important. At this point, I want to reiterate several specific requests for comment and information that we included in the preamble. MSHA solicits comments from the mining community, regarding the increase in incombustible content of dust in air courses where methane is present. The ETS requires and additional 0.4 percent TIC for each 0.1 percent of methane, where methane is present in any ventilating current. Please include rationale and supporting documentation for any suggested alternative compliance methods. MSHA requests comments on all the estimates of costs and benefits, including net benefits, presented in the ETS. Specifically, MSHA requests comments on the Agency's benefit estimate, as well as supporting data. MSHA solicits information from the mining community that would enable a more specific analysis of costs, which could include the costs of additional rock dust; increased labor needed to apply the rock dust; and any additional equipment that would be necessary, such as pod dusters, trickle dusters, finger dusters and scoop batteries. For equipment, please include the type, number of pieces, costs and expected service life. Please explain whether mining methods would affect the costs, such as the longwall mine compared to non-longwall mines. To date, the Agency has received one comment on the ETS. You can view the comments on the Agency's website at www.msha.gov under the section entitled Rules and Regulations. The post-hearing comment period for the ETS closes on December 20, 2010 and MSHA must receive your comments by midnight eastern standard time on that date. You may submit comments following this hearing, by any of the methods identified in the ETS. The hearing, as many of you know, will be conducted in an informal manner. Cross Examination and formal rules of evidence will not apply. The panel may ask questions of the speakers, speakers may ask questions of the panel. MSHA will make a transcript of the hearing available on the Agency's website within one week of each hearing. And I believe that the transcripts of the St. Louis and the Birmingham hearings are on the Agency's website. If you wish to present written statements or information today, please clearly identify your material and give a copy to the court reporter. We also ask that those of you in attendance, who may not be speaking, sign the attendance sheet. And we have additional copies of the ETS if people wish a copy. Please begin by clearly stating your name and organization, so that we will have an accurate record, if you would spell your name for the court reporter. And now we will begin today's hearing. Our first speaker will be Linda Raisovich-Parsons with the United Mine Workers of America. Ms. RAISOVICH-PARSONS: Good morning. CHAIR: Good morning. Ms. RAISOVICH-PARSONS: My name is Linda Raisovich-Parsons. And I am the administrator for the United Mine Worker's Department of Occupational Health and Safety. My name is spelled R-A-I-S-O-V-I-C-H, hyphen, P-A-R-S-O-N-S. Let me begin by saying that the United Mine Wrokers is in complete agreement with MSHA’s actions in enacting an Emergency Temporary Standard for increasing the incombustible content in intake entries to 80%. We agree that sufficient evidence exists to warrant an Emergency Temporary Standard. As MSHA points out an Emergency Temporary Standard is intended “to react quickly to grave dangers that threaten miners before those dangers manifest themselves in serious or fatal injuries or illnesses.” Until the most recent NIOSH study, the agency and industry had been relying on a similar dust particle survey conducted by the Bureau of Mines in the 1020’s. Needless to say the industry and mining methods have changed significantly since that time. In fact, current mining methods are highly mechanized, creating coal dust particles that are much finer and more explosive than those of years gone by. Consequently, mining methods now used have significantly increased the dangers of a dust explosion and must be dealt with swiftly. An Emergency Temporary Standard is most appropriate and has the UMWA’s 100% support. Early evidence from the Upper Big Branch Mine Disaster investigation indicates that coal dust was likely involved in this tragedy. This was the worst mine disaster in the United States in 40 years. Further, the NIOSH study revealed that between the years 1976 through 2001 there were 6 explosions that resulted in 46 fatalities in which rock dusting conditions in the intake contributed to the severity of the explosions. So yes, indeed, MSHA has the full support of the United Mine Workers in this endeavor. Let’s not let one more miner die as a result of this hazard. Thank you. CHAIR: Any questions? MS. RAISOVICH-PARSONS: I noticed in the rules it had a compliance date of November 22nd? CHAIR: For any newly mined areas. For any areas that were mined after the ETS was issued, operators had to comply with that October 7, then on November 22, for all other areas. So those were mined out of, areas that had been mined. MS. RAISOVICH-PARSONS: Well, speaking to my folks right here, there is a lot of rollercoastering going on out there. But it's the Agency's follow up to check to see if compliance of the industry is actually really compliant. CHAIR: Well, our inspectors will be out there doing regular inspections. We've issued full information to them, as well as a procedure instruction manual to our inspector. The procedure instruction of October 14, which gave our inspector information, told them about the ETS and the compliance date and pointed out areas that we wanted them to pay attention to; particularly on it. And there was talk about some of those areas that would be in the areas covered on the November 22 application of the ETS. CHAIR: Now understand the PIB, Program Information Bulletin. We issued that on September 21, right after we issued the ETS. And that also talked about kind of the same thing. And that really was to the program information bulletin, was to non-operators and Trade Association and Labor Organization, manufacturers, all of them was affected. The procedure instruction was primarily our part to our own people, including our own staff. MS. RAISOVICH-PARSONS Okay. All right, thank you. CHAIR: Okay. Thank you. The next speaker we have is Mike Harman. MR. HARMAN: Thank you, very much. I appreciate the opportunity to come to this hearing and speak. I didn't come prepared with a written statement, but I imagine I will provide something in writing later on. But my name is Michael Harman, H-A-R-M-A-N. I live at 811 Dinden Drive in Saint Albans. That's D-I-N-D-E-N Drive. And it's Saint Albans, West Virginia, 25177. I am now retired but in 1980, I was hired to work at the Cabin Creek Medical Center at West Virginia. I worked there from 1980 to 1987 in a black lung clinic program that was initiated by Greg Wagner, M.D., who I'm sure you're familiar with. Greg Wagner was the guy that hired me. I was the first person hired in the black lung clinic program there in Cabin Creek. And I was trained by his wife, Emily Speiler. My job title there at the program was benefits counselor. Emily Speiler, Greg's wife, was a lawyer or had been working for several years in Workmen's Comp and black lung and social security disability and so forth. She was an expert in those areas. And so she helped me orient it and help get started in my job as benefits counselor at the clinic. My job there was to help miners and other patient clinics with medical exams, including chest x-rays. Our program did a detailed intake that included medical history, as well as occupational exposures and other history that would tell us what --- smoking history and so forth that would tell us what these folks were exposed to, in addition to coal dust in mines. Each week we had a care conference, so all of the patients that had enrolled in our program for the week were reviewed by our black lung clinic staff. And a plan was put together for each patient based on their medical needs and other needs, including help with smoking cessation if they were interested, and healthcare for whatever they had. I toured a couple of underground mines during those years that I worked. And I was able to see mining in operation in an underground mine, also longwall mining, very interesting, very educational for me. And over the years, the seven years I worked at the clinic, surely I saw some --- I don't know an exact number but I'm sure I saw thousands of miners and heard a lot of stories about mining hazards and coal dust and rock dust and the whole bit. I developed a healthy respect in admiration for coal miners that continues to this day. I saw first hand the effects of coal dust exposure. I worked with miners that struggled to breathe, who you know, would get winded just getting up and walking across the room in my office. I also managed to quit smoking during those years. I figured if I didn't quit, I would end up looking like some of these folks that was working with at the time. We performed physical exams and chest x-rays. We had a certain guideline. With at least ten years of exposure or ten years of employment in the mines, we would schedule a chest x-ray, a physical exam and look for evidence of coal worker's pneumoconiosis. We did see in a number of miners with just ten years of experience, that they did have early evidence of black lung, including chest x-ray evidence. Greg Wagner at the time was a B reader for chest x-rays, so he was knowledgeable. So my job was to look at the evidence and explain the evidence, the results of the physical exam to our patients, to the miners, and advise them if they were entitled to file Workers' Comp Black Lung Claim and so forth. And in so doing, I realized at the time that, you know, whatever was being done to control dust in the mines was not working perfectly. If it had been working well, we would not have seen the cases of pneumoconiosis that we saw at the time. I never recalled any accidents or explosions that happened during the time that I worked there, at least not in our local area. So I can't really comment too much on the relationship of coal dust with mine explosions. But I certainly can comment on the relationship of coal dust with health respects. Not too long ago, within the last couple years, I encountered someone in Charleston who I had met years before, who was an official with the West Virginia Workers' Comp program. He told me that he was seeing evidence of a greater frequency of pneumoconiosis among current miners, and also increasing severity of black lung disease. He was not in a position to make this an issue. He couldn't really speak publicly. But I told him that I would take a look at some reports that he referred me to, and try to get those to our congressional mitigation in West Virginia and I did that. And I'm here today, and I'm sorry wasn't prepared here today. But I'm here in support of the new standard, the proposed standard for rock dusting in mines because not only do I feel that it will decrease the risk of explosion. I'm sure there's no question of that. There's absolutely no question that improved and increased rock dusting will reduce the likelihood of explosion caused by or exacerbated by coal dust. I also believe that improved rock dusting of the mines will result in lower levels of respirable coal dust in miners and will have a positive beneficial impact on the occurrence of black lung. Thanks, very much. CHAIR: Oh, thank you. I want to make a few comments. You don't have to stay up there. Thank you, very much. Let me state that we thought that the Emergency Temporary Standard would have a positive impact on benefits on reducing black lung, although we did not quantify the benefits, and we could not quantify the benefits. However, I would like to state we appreciate your comments. I would like to state, for you and for everybody in our country. And I'm sure you all know this, that on October 19, we issued the proposed rule lowering miners exposure to respirable coal dust, subsequent to that time, we issued a public hearing notice where we announced the locations of six hearings. So we do invite everybody to participate in that rulemaking also. And I'm sure you were all aware of that. Okay, thank you. Is there anybody who wishes to comment? Testify? MR. SEABOLT: I have a comment. CHAIR: Come up and please state your name for the record. Thank you. MR. SEABOLT: Brian Seabolt, S-E-A-B-O-L-T. I'm from West Virginia, working at the Pinnacle Mountain Testing. And I had a comment on the PDMs also. But my concern with the dust is at least in the work out areas, does it have also to be dusted? Actually, that's what we're having problems with. Well, we've already mined out all the works because we got a big mine. And it's you know, ---. I'm just concerned about those about the men losing their jobs over this. CHAIR: So let me get you straight. You said you were concerned about the PDM of equipment? MR. SEABOLT: No, I'm concerned about the rock dust, personally. CHAIR: The rock dust, right. MR. SEABOLT: That's another matter. CHAIR: Right. That's another matter, thank you. Okay. MR. SEABOLT: Sorry. I should have stated that. CHAIR: Okay, right. That confused me. So you are confused about the rock dust; aren't you? MR. SEABOLT: Yeah. CHAIR: You were concerned about the requirement that is worked out there. MR. SEABOLT: Yeah, yeah. CHAIR: Now, would you tell me your concern? MR. SEABOLT: We have a huge amount. I mean, it's been there for 40 years probably, --- CHAIR: Okay. MR. SEABOLT: --- if not longer. And I mean, all of the old bleeder areas and all the old seals. Because some of those seals won't have developed bleeder areas and stuff, as far as ventilation. Will those also to be 80 percent? CHAIR: Yes, in all areas. MR. SEABOLT: Okay. That was my concern. CHAIR: In all areas, that's right. That's the area to get right back to Ms. Raisovich-Parson's question earlier. Those are all the areas that have to be in compliance by November 22, when they had been completed at the time when we initiaed the Emergency Temporary Standard, right. MR. SEABOLT: Okay. I just didn't quite get you. CHAIR: I understand, yeah. MR. SEABOLT: That's all I have to say, thank you. CHAIR: Okay. Is there anybody else who wishes to make a comment, who wishes to testify? Anybody else? Yes, sir. MR. HALL: Sam Hall, H-A-L-L. My comment is you know, the rock dust is bad and it's doing its job. But as far as a scrubber, which removes 92 percent of respirable dust out of the air, why do we not use them? CHAIR: Okay. Tell me now. What company do you work for? MR. HALL: Mammoth. CHAIR: Mammoth? MR. HALL: Yes. CHAIR: And your question again is what? MR. HALL: Why can't we use scrubbers which removes 92 percent of respirable dust out of the air, which to me seems like it would put less dust down in recurrence, wouldn't use --- I mean, it would help out part of the rock dusting. CHAIR: I understand. You are asking a question that is not the subject of this rulemaking that we are having today. But I do understand your question. I don't understand the details of what's required at your mine but that is obviously an issue that is addressed in your ventilation and dust control plan, I'm sure. Is that right? MR. SEABOLT: Yes, ma'am. CHAIR: Right. And so that would be the plan that would be submitted by your company to the district manager for that district. Okay. It would be submitted to that district manager. Though I can't read it, it would be inappropriate because I wouldn't be able to comment on the specifics of why they wouldn't allow scrubbers at your mine, quite honestly, without making on all the details of why. I assume that your company sent us a plan to use scrubbers, and when it was evaluated by our people, they said you couldn't use the scrubbers. And I don't know the specifics of why they said you could use them or not. MR. SEABOLT: Nobody's allowed. Nobody's allowed to use them anymore. CHAIR: That issue is not at issue here, as I said in the dust control and the ventilation and dust control plan. And it really is a plan, a mine-by-mine plan. I'm just saying I hear what other people are saying; nobody's allowed to use it. And so that is an issue that I think is being addressed in Arlington also. So I think we will just have to let that suffice for now, at this hearing. But knowing that, I will assure you that that's not the end of the inquire. And I know we will talk about this some more. I can assure you of that. And anybody else who also has that same issue and that same question. It's just that our panel is not able to address that in detail. Even though I'm sure you would like an address at this time. Okay, thank you. Anybody else? MR. EGNOR: My name's Carl Egnor, E-G-N-O-R. I represent United Mine Workers. I serve on two Boards for the state of West Virginia, one of those Boards being the Board of Coal Miner's Health and Safety. It must have been three months ago we passed a similar rule. We did the same thing concerning rock dust. And I fully support the MSHA rule. I think it's a long time making that. CHAIR: Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? MR. HAMILTON: Chris Hamilton, West Virginia Coal Association. We have some question concerning the Emergency Temporary Standard on rock dusting and we’ll address those questions in a written filing which we intend on filing before December 20. A couple issues have been raised here that I feel compelled to comment on, the scrubbers on mining machines for one. And I know MSHA is in the process of considering a number of rules and also a fixing or a signing by origins to those rules. One of the previous speakers indicated that the current rule has been in effect here in West Virginia for several months. I believe by virtue of an Executive Order that was issued by previous Governor Manchin, now Senator Manchin back in April. So a Senator requirement has been in effect here in West Virginia for the biggest part of the last six months now. And I also heard a previous speaker talk about some of the previous periods with respirable dust and that's the topic of an upcoming hearing as you indicate, Ms. Silvey. But that's a major concern that we have here in West Virginia, the fact that the Agency is precluding mine operators and miners from using scrubbers on continuous miners. And I've heard some of the discussion --- overheard some of the discussion, an issue for another day perhaps --- for another forum. But I would urge the Agency to immediately allow --- and I'm not even sure an Emergency Standard is necessary to immediately allow mine operators and miners to begin to use the machine mounted scrubbers to eliminate and reduce what could be dangerous levels of coal dust, respirable dust, at the first point of address or its origin, where it is actually being generated at the face. I would submit to you that that's a much greater concern here throughout West Virginia and Appalachia than putting additional five, ten percent of rock dust in workers that have been there for decades, part and parcel to the concern that we have over --- not allowing miners and mine operators to use machine mounted scrubbers that are designed to dilute, mitigate and reduce harmless coal dust levels. We would also ask that you immediately consider allowing mine operators and miners to fully utilize extended cut remote controlled mining machines here in West Virginia. We understand for all intents and purposes there's a moratorium under way. Written or unwritten, there's clearly a moratorium on approving deep cut mining plans here in West Virginia. The consequence of that is that these machines --- and not just continuous miners, but all face inspection machines. Including two or more shuttle cars, scoop cars are being required to be relocated and moved at much higher frequencies, subject every single person on the working section to hazards that are experienced with moving large equipment in relatively small confined spaces. In fact, by not addressing this issue, and by insisting on the moratorium, MSHA is responsible for increasing hazards related to moving equipment around on working sections on the order of magnitude of 50 percent. If I'm not mistaken, of the 28 or 31 mining deaths that MSHA sites in one of its studies, pertaining to continuous miners where individuals are caught between the rib, if I'm mistaken, the majority of those mining deaths occurred while a machine would be moved from place to place, or being moved on the section. Again, by not allowing a machine that has been engineered to safely mine depths 34, 36, 38 feet, and by requiring that machine to move to cease mining and to move when it reaches a 20 foot depth, we are requiring by that action that machines be moved 50 percent move on a section. Not only that machine but again, I repeat every other piece of equipment on that section is required to be moved. One of the things that really contributes to safety of a mine is stability and knowing where your fellow worker is, knowing where his machine is at all times and the coordination of those various pieces of machinery on a working section. And communication must take place between machine operators. Again, when we disrupt that and require twice as many moves around a working section because we refuse to allow machines to perform as designed and engineered to perform, we enhance those individual hazards to individual miners. And I would submit to you that this is a much greater issue and problem here in West Virginia, where we account for somewhere around 50, 60 percent of the nation's underground mines, than what this proposed rock dust standard is aimed at the rest of. And since those issues were raised, I feel compelled to bring them to your attention so perhaps you can return those to Arlington. And perhaps let's find a greater priority and level of importance to it. CHAIR: Thank you. MR. HAMILTON: So with that, I'd be glad to respond to any questions or ---. CHAIR: I don't really have any questions. I do have comments to make to everybody. MR. HAMILTON All right. CHAIR: And that is that I hear what you're saying and I can assure you that I will take your concerns back to our Assistant Secretary and back to our people in Arlington. I will say that as you were talking, you know, and I do know that to, that that is a continuing issue. And I saw people in the audience who were bowing their head as you were talking. And I want to say for everybody here that we're in the business of protecting miner's health and safety. And we do not want to take any action at all. I wrote down that you stated that MSHA is responsible for increasing hazards on a magnitude of greater than 50 percent, which I'm sure I speak for my panel here that we are in the business of protecting miner's health and safety and not in bringing additional hazards in to the mine. So we take very seriously what you say. And I will take that back. As I stated earlier, a couple of the issues go beyond the scope of this rulemaking and yet they are important issues to us. So in that sense, they are not issues that we are not concerned about. So I want everybody to know that. And we will be getting back to people on that. Thank you. MR. HAMILTON: Thank you. CHAIR: Okay. Does anybody else wish to make any statement? MR. MAYNARD: I would. James Maynard, M-A-Y-N-A-R-D. Just to sum up on something that he said. Okay, I run a mine. Well, I've been in the mine for 34 years. I've been a miner for 27, correct. And everybody I know, I mean I know a lot of people that's mining coal. Know this and know that. And I'm not knocking your, you know, dust thing. Which you know, dust isn't great. But it all begins in the face. You know, working outside, running up and down the track. Do you know what I'm saying? Everybody I know has got one from sitting in place. He's got one. I know what his is. Everybody I know that's got one, it's all started in the face. You know, I'm not mocking you all. I agree on the rock dusting in certain areas. But just because you got have 80 percent, you know, in the third break underground, does not help the people that you know, needs the help. That's all I'm telling you. CHAIR: Excuse me, sir. What did you say your last name was again? MR. MAYNARD: Maynard, M-A-Y-N-A-R-D. CHAIR: Okay. Thank you. Does anybody else wish to make a statement? If nobody else wishes to make a statement, let's take a break until 10:30. And then at 10:30, I will then determine how we will proceed on this. Thank you. SHORT BREAK TAKEN CHAIR: At this time we will reconvene the MSHA public hearing. Is there anybody else who wishes to make a statement? If nobody else wishes to speak, I again want to say that MSHA appreciates your participation at this hearing. I want to say personally and on behalf of the Assistant Secretary that we appreciate those of you who did make a statement, and to those of who attended but may have not made a statement. We appreciate your participation because that suggests to us that you are concerned about the process in the rulemaking. I want to reiterate that the record closes on December 20, 2010, and if you would like to make additional comments you can do so on MSHA’s website by 12:00 p.m. eastern standard time on December 20, 2010. I can reassure you that we will take your comments and concerns into consideration in determining the final rule on the main issue that on the table. Thank you. * * * * * * * * HEARING CONCLUDED AT 10:30 A.M. * * * * * * * * CERTIFICATE I hereby certify, as the stenographic reporter, that the foregoing proceedings were taken stenographically by me, and thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under my direction; and that this transcript is a true and accurate record to the best of my ability. ?? ?? 2 Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908 Sargent's Court Reporting Service, Inc. (814) 536-8908