Proposed Rule

53070

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules

the IRS and the Treasury Department
believe that the regulations likely would
not have a ‘‘significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities.’’ 5 U.S.C. 605. This certification
is based on the fact that the number of
small entities affected by this rule is
unlikely to be substantial because it is
unlikely that a substantial number of
small multiemployer plans in critical
and declining status will suspend
benefits under section 432(e)(9).
Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code,
this notice of proposed rulemaking has
been submitted to the Chief Counsel of
Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration for comment on its
impact on small business.

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Comments and Request for a Public
Hearing

18:00 Sep 01, 2015

Jkt 235001

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

For general questions regarding these
regulations, please contact the
Department of the Treasury MPRA
guidance information line at (202) 622–
1559 (not a toll-free number). For
information regarding a specific
application for a suspension of benefits,
please contact the Department of the
Treasury at (202) 622–1534 (not a tollfree number).

Mine Safety and Health Administration

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1
Income taxes, reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

PART 1—INCOME TAXES
Paragraph 1. The authority citation
for part 1 continues to read in part as
follows:

■

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

Par. 2. Section 1.432(e)(9)–1(h) is
amended by revising paragraph (h)(2)
and adding paragraphs (h)(3)(iv) and (v)
to read as follows:

■

§ 1.432(e)(9)–1 Benefit suspensions for
multiemployer plans in critical and
declining status.

*

*
*
*
*
(h) * * *
(2) Participant vote. [The text of the
proposed amendments to § 1.432(e)(9)–
1(h)(2) is the same as § 1.432(e)(9)–
1T(h)(2) published elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register.]
*
*
*
*
*
(3) * * *
(iv) Statement in opposition to the
proposed suspension. [The text of the
proposed amendments to § 1.432(e)(9)–
1(h)(3)(iv) is the same as § 1.432(e)(9)–
1T(h)(3)(iv) published elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register.]
(v) Model ballot. [The text of the
proposed amendments to § 1.432(e)(9)–
1(h)(3)(v) is the same as § 1.432(e)(9)–
1T(h)(3)(v) published elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register.]
*
*
*
*
*
John M. Dalrymple,
Deputy Commissioner for Services and
Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2015–21765 Filed 8–31–15; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P

PO 00000

Frm 00052

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

30 CFR Part 75
[Docket No. MSHA–2014–0019]
RIN 1219–AB78

Proximity Detection Systems for
Mobile Machines in Underground
Mines
Mine Safety and Health
Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:

The Mine Safety and Health
Administration (MSHA) is proposing to
require underground coal mine
operators to equip coal hauling
machines and scoops with proximity
detection systems. Miners working near
these machines face pinning, crushing,
and striking hazards that result in
accidents involving life threatening
injuries and death. The proposal would
strengthen protections for miners by
reducing the potential for pinning,
crushing, or striking accidents in
underground coal mines. MSHA is also
interested in the application of these
proposed requirements to underground
metal and nonmetal mines.
DATES: Comments must be received or
postmarked by midnight Eastern
Daylight Saving Time on December 1,
2015.
SUMMARY:

Proposed Amendments to the
Regulations
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is
proposed to be amended as follows:

Before these proposed regulations are
adopted as final regulations,
consideration will be given to any
comments that are submitted timely to
the Treasury Department and the IRS as
prescribed in this preamble under the
‘‘Addresses’’ heading. The Treasury
Department and the IRS request
comments on all aspects of the proposed
rules. All comments will be available for
public inspection and copying at
www.regulations.gov or upon request.
Please Note: All comments will be made
available to the public. Do not include
any personally identifiable information
(such as Social Security number, name,
address, or other contact information) or
confidential business information that
you do not want publicly disclosed. All
comments may be posted on the Internet
and can be retrieved by most Internet
search engines.
If requested in writing by any person
who timely submits written comments
on these proposed regulations, a public
hearing will be scheduled on the
contents of this document. Comments
and requests for a public hearing must
be received by November 2, 2015. If a
public hearing is scheduled, notice of
the date, time, and place for the public
hearing will be published in the Federal
Register. Please see the ‘‘Background
and Explanation of Provisions’’ heading
for information regarding a public
hearing scheduled for September 10,
2015, concerning the June 2015
proposed regulations regarding the
Suspension of Benefits under the
Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of
2014, during which individuals who
have already requested to speak
regarding those regulations may also
address the substance of these proposed
regulations.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

Contact Information

Submit comments and
informational materials, identified by
RIN 1219–AB78 or Docket No. MSHA–
2014–0019, by one of the following
methods:
• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal:
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Email: [email protected].
• Fax: 202–693–9441.
• Mail: MSHA, Office of Standards,
Regulations, and Variances, 201 12th
Street South, Suite 4E401, Arlington,
Virginia 22209–3939.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: MSHA, 201
12th Street South, Suite 4E401,
Arlington, Virginia, between 9:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. Sign in at the
receptionist’s desk on the 4th floor.
Instructions: All submissions must
include MSHA and RIN 1219–AB78 or
Docket No. MSHA–2014–0019. Do not
include personal information that you
do not want publicly disclosed; MSHA
will post all comments without change
to http://www.regulations.gov and
http://www.msha.gov/
currentcomments.asp, including any
personal information provided.

ADDRESSES:

E:\FR\FM\02SEP1.SGM

02SEP1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Docket: For access to the docket to
read comments received, go to http://
www.regulations.gov or http://
www.msha.gov/currentcomments.asp.
To read background documents, go to
http://www.regulations.gov. Review the
docket in person at MSHA, Office of
Standards, Regulations, and Variances,
201 12th Street South, Suite 4E401,
Arlington, Virginia, between 9:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays. Sign in at the
receptionist’s desk on the 4th floor.
Information Collection Supporting
Statement: MSHA posts Information
Collection Supporting Statements on
http://www.regulations.gov and on
MSHA’s Web site at http://
www.msha.gov/regs/fedreg/
informationcollection/
informationcollection.asp. A copy of the
information collection package is also
available from the Department of Labor
by request to Michel Smyth at
[email protected] (email) or 202–
693–4129 (voice).
Preliminary Regulatory Economic
Analysis (PREA): MSHA will post the
PREA on http://www.regulations.gov
and on MSHA’s Web site at http://
www.msha.gov/rea.htm.
E-Mail Notification: To subscribe to
receive an email notification when
MSHA publishes rules, program
information, instructions, or policy, in
the Federal Register, go to http://
www.msha.gov/subscriptions/
subscribe.aspx.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sheila McConnell, Acting Director,
Office of Standards, Regulations, and
Variances, MSHA, at
[email protected] (email),
202–693–9440 (voice), or 202–693–9441
(facsimile).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Regulatory Authority
B. Background
II. Section-by-Section Analysis
A. § 75.1733(a) Machines Covered
B. § 75.1733(b) Requirements for Proximity
Detection Systems
C. § 75.1733(c) Proximity Detection System
Checks
D. § 75.1733(d) Certification and Records
III. Preliminary Regulatory Economic
Analysis
A. Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and
13563
B. Population at Risk
C. Net Benefits
D. Benefits
E. Compliance Costs
IV. Feasibility
A. Technological Feasibility
B. Economic Feasibility

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Sep 01, 2015

Jkt 235001

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act
A. Definition of a Small Mine
B. Factual Basis for Certification
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
A. Summary
B. Procedural Details
VII. Other Regulatory Considerations
A. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
B. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
C. The Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act of 1999: Assessment
of Federal Regulations and Policies on
Families
D. Executive Order 12630: Government
Actions and Interference With
Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights
E. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice
Reform
F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
I. Executive Order 13272: Proper
Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking
VIII. References

I. Introduction
The proposed rule would require
underground coal mine operators to
equip coal hauling machines and scoops
on working sections, except longwall
working sections, with proximity
detection systems according to a phasein schedule for newly manufactured and
existing equipment. The proposed
requirements would strengthen
protections for miners by reducing the
potential for pinning, crushing, or
striking injuries to miners who work
near these machines. MSHA is also
interested in the application of these
proposed requirements to underground
metal and nonmetal mines.
Proximity detection systems consist of
machine-mounted components and, if
applicable, miner-wearable components.
For proximity detection systems with
miner-wearable components, the mine
operator would be required to provide a
miner-wearable component to be worn
by each miner on the working section.
The proposed rule would establish
performance and maintenance
requirements for proximity detection
systems and would require training for
persons performing the installation and
maintenance.
A. Regulatory Authority
This proposed rule is issued under
section 101 of the Federal Mine Safety

PO 00000

Frm 00053

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

53071

and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act), as
amended.
B. Background
Proximity detection is a technology
that uses electronic sensors to detect
motion or the location of one object
relative to another. Proximity detection
systems provide a warning and stop
mobile machines before a pinning,
crushing, or striking accident occurs
that could result in injury or death to
miners.
Traditionally, coal hauling machines
(shuttle cars, ram cars, and continuous
haulage systems) are self-propelled
equipment used to transport coal from
the working face to a point where the
coal is loaded into mine cars or onto a
conveyor for transfer to the surface.
Scoops are self-propelled general utility
vehicles for cleanup of loose coal or
debris and moving equipment or
supplies. MSHA has evaluated all
accident reports involving coal hauling
machines and scoops between 1984 and
2014. MSHA has determined that a
proximity detection system could have
prevented 42 fatalities and 179 injuries
resulting from these accidents that
occurred on the working section.
In 1998, MSHA evaluated accidents
involving remote controlled mining
machines and determined that
proximity detection systems have the
potential to prevent accidents that occur
when the machine operator or another
miner gets too close to the machine
(Dransite, 1998). MSHA noted that if
changes in work practices or machine
design do not prevent miners from being
placed in unsafe locations, the Agency
should consider a requirement for
proximity detection with automatic
machine shutdown. No MSHAapproved proximity detection systems
were commercially available for use in
underground mines at that time.
In 2002, following a series of fatal
pinning, crushing, and striking
accidents, MSHA decided to work with
the coal mining industry to develop a
proximity detection system for use on
underground continuous mining
machines. Since that time,
manufacturers adapted proximity
detection for use on other mobile
machines. MSHA evaluated several
systems and conducted field testing.
In 2010, MSHA introduced an
initiative titled ‘‘Safety Practices around
Shuttle Cars and Scoops in
Underground Coal Mines.’’ MSHA
initiated this safety campaign to raise
the mining industry’s awareness of
pinning, crushing, or striking hazards
associated with mobile mining
machines. This initiative included
training programs and best practices to

E:\FR\FM\02SEP1.SGM

02SEP1

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

53072

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules

encourage mine operators to train
underground coal miners to exercise
caution when working around mobile
machines. Information regarding this
initiative is available at: http://
www.msha.gov/focuson/watchout/
watchout.asp. Even so, 41 pinning,
crushing, or striking accidents involving
coal hauling machines and scoops have
occurred since 2010: 23 that involved
coal hauling machines and 18 that
involved scoops. Three fatalities
occurred in 2013, one involving a scoop
and two involving coal hauling
machines; and one fatality occurred in
2014 involving a scoop. MSHA
determined that proximity detection
systems could have prevented these
accidents (since these miners were
located in a proximity detection system
warning/stopping zone).
The Agency published a Request for
Information (RFI) on proximity
detection systems in the Federal
Register on February 1, 2010 (75 FR
5009). The comment period closed on
April 2, 2010. MSHA received
comments from mining associations;
mining companies; manufacturers; and
state, federal, and international
governments.
Comments received in response to the
RFI addressed specific questions
regarding function, application,
training, costs, and benefits of proximity
detection systems to reduce the risk of
accidents. Some commenters stated that
proximity detection systems are
beneficial and can prevent pinning,
crushing, and striking accidents.
Commenters stated that conditions in
the mining environment, including
blocked visibility and limited space, or
simply the lack of sight due to limited
light, can cause an accident and that the
only way to address these hazards is to
equip mining vehicles with a proximity
detection system. A commenter stated
that, when it comes to safety,
engineering barriers are sometimes
required when the behavior of everyone,
whether due to the lack of training or
taking shortcuts, cannot be relied on.
Several commenters stated that the
technology needs further development
and testing.
RFI comments related to specific
provisions of the proposed rule are
addressed in the section-by-section
analysis later in this preamble.
In April 2010, MSHA observed the
use of proximity detection systems in
three underground mines in the
Republic of South Africa (South Africa),
demonstrating successful use of this
technology. One of the mines visited
began testing a proximity detection
system in 2008 and, at the time of the
MSHA visit, had equipped the mobile

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Sep 01, 2015

Jkt 235001

machines with the system on three
sections in an underground coal mine.
This mine used the proximity detection
system on remote controlled continuous
mining machines, shuttle cars, roof
bolting machines, feeder breakers, and
scoops.
One system observed in South Africa,
not used in the United States, used
multiple technologies: Very low
frequency (VLF) electromagnetic
technology in combination with ultrahigh frequency (UHF) radio frequency
identification (RFID) and a 2.4 gigahertz
(GHz) radar system. The VLF
electromagnetic system provided great
accuracy at close distances for slower
moving machines. The UHF RFID
system provided greater range for faster
moving machines. The radar system
provided an object detection system,
which communicated with the other
two systems to validate potential
danger.
There are four proximity detection
systems approved under existing
regulations for permissibility in 30 CFR
part 18. These approvals are intended to
ensure that the systems will not
introduce an ignition hazard when
operated in potentially explosive
atmospheres. MSHA’s approval
regulations under 30 CFR part 18 do not
address how systems will perform in
reducing pinning, crushing, or striking
hazards. Two of these systems have
been installed on coal hauling machines
and scoops.
The four MSHA-approved proximity
detection systems operate using
electromagnetic technology and require
a miner to wear a component. A
microprocessor sends a signal to
activate a warning signal or stop
machine movement when a miner
wearing the component is within a
distance pre-set for the machine and
mine conditions.
In September 2011, MSHA observed
two coal hauling machines equipped
with an MSHA-approved proximity
detection system being used in an
underground coal mine in the United
States. MSHA observed the systems
provide appropriate activation of
warning signals and stop the coal
hauling machines. MSHA also observed
the coal hauling machines and
continuous mining machines equipped
with proximity detection systems
function properly to protect miners
equipped with miner-wearable
components.
In June 2013, MSHA observed an
MSHA-approved proximity detection
system on a coal hauling machine and
on a scoop at an underground coal mine
in the United States. MSHA observed

PO 00000

Frm 00054

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

the system activate a warning signal and
stop the machines as designed.
MSHA monitors the installation and
development of proximity detection
systems to maintain up-to-date
information on the number and
capabilities of systems in use. MSHA
estimates that, as of January 2015, there
were 583 machines in underground coal
mines in the United States equipped
with proximity detection systems.
Equipped machines include continuous
mining machines, scoops, coal hauling
machines, a loading machine, a feeder
breaker, and a roof bolting machine.
MSHA accident data supports a
proposed rule that applies to coal
hauling machines (shuttle cars, ram
cars, and continuous haulage systems)
and scoops. At this time, MSHA does
not have accident data that justifies
applying the proposed requirements to
other mobile machines on the working
section, such as roof bolting machines.
MSHA published a final rule on
Proximity Detection Systems for
Continuous Mining Machines in
Underground Coal Mines on January 15,
2015 (80 FR 2188). The final rule
addressed equipping continuous mining
machines with proximity detection
systems, phased in over 8 to 36 months,
and is separate from this rulemaking.
MSHA developed this proposed rule
on proximity detection systems for
mobile machines in underground mines
to be comparable to the requirements for
proximity detection systems on
continuous mining machines. MSHA
intends that this proposed rule would
take advantage of existing proven
technology, to minimize the burden on
mine operators, and allow for advances
in proximity detection technology.
Additional information on proximity
detection systems and technology is
available on the NIOSH’s Web page at
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/
topics/ProximityDetection.html.
MSHA solicits information and data
on the advantages and disadvantages of
applying proximity detection systems
on mobile machines in underground
metal and nonmetal mines.
II. Section-by-Section Analysis
A. § 75.1733(a) Machines Covered
Proposed § 75.1733(a) would require
underground coal mine operators to
equip coal hauling machines and scoops
on working sections, except longwall
working sections, with the machinemounted components of a proximity
detection system in accordance with the
proposed phase-in schedule. At this
time, all MSHA-approved proximity
detection systems include a minerwearable component. Together, the

E:\FR\FM\02SEP1.SGM

02SEP1

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules
machine-mounted components and any
miner-wearable components make up
the proximity detection system. This
proposed rule would also accommodate
possible future technologies that may
not require a miner-wearable
component.
For MSHA-approved proximity
detection systems with miner-wearable
components, the proposed rule would
require the mine operator to provide a
miner-wearable component to be worn
by each miner on the working section,
except longwall working sections. The
proposal would apply to coal hauling
machines and scoops on working
sections using continuous mining
machines, including full-face
continuous mining machines, or using
conventional mining methods. The
proposal would apply to production and
maintenance shifts.
A commenter, in response to the RFI,
stated that MSHA’s approval process
does not include an evaluation of the
systems’ functional readiness to perform
in the underground mine environment.
This commenter indicated that only a
handful of mines have operational
experience with approved systems and
that a thorough examination of the
operational readiness of these systems
must be undertaken to address safety
issues before they are required. Several
other commenters stated that proximity
detection systems have not proven
reliable and that more testing is needed.
A representative of a South African
mining company that uses a proximity
detection system on continuous mining
machines, shuttle cars, scoops, roof
bolting machines, and feeder breakers,
stated in comments to the RFI that the
system is reliable. This South African
mining company reported that it did not
have a single reliability problem over a
period of 18 months.
A proximity detection system
manufacturer stated that its proximity
detection system is installed on many
types of underground mobile machines
in Canada and Australia and that there
has not been a serious injury or fatality
reported on any machine using its
proximity detection system. Another
commenter stated that applying
proximity detection systems to all
mobile machines should be a long-term
goal that could provide safety benefits.
Coal hauling machines include
shuttle cars, diesel- and battery-powered
ram cars, and continuous haulage
systems. Scoops in underground coal
mines include both diesel-powered and
electrical-powered scoops. Mobile
machines travel through narrow
entryways at faster speeds than
continuous mining machines. Miners
work and travel in the same narrow

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Sep 01, 2015

Jkt 235001

entryways and the on-board machine
operators have limited visibility of the
area around the machine. Coal hauling
machines also travel through ventilation
curtains where they can encounter
miners without warning. Continuous
haulage systems include mobile bridge
conveyors or carriers and flexible
conveyor trains. Continuous haulage
systems consist of two or more mobile
units. When a continuous haulage
system is used to transport coal to the
conveyor, MSHA considers the working
section to be all areas of the mine from
the loading point to and including the
working faces. These machines are long
and extend beyond the visual range of
the machine operator. Miners on
working sections using continuous
haulage systems can be near the systems
without the machine operators’
knowledge and can be pinned, crushed,
or struck.
MSHA has determined that miners are
exposed to pinning, crushing, and
striking hazards when working near
these machines in underground coal
mines, and that working near these
machines on the working section has
resulted in a significant number of
injuries and fatalities. A proximity
detection system could have prevented
42 pinning, crushing, or striking
fatalities on these machines from 1984
through 2014 (since the miners were
located in a proximity detection system
warning/stopping zone), which
occurred on working sections: 31
associated with coal hauling machines
and 11 associated with scoops. (See
Table 1.) Use of proximity detection
systems could have prevented these
accidents by stopping machine
movement before miners were pinned,
crushed, or struck by the machine.

53073

systems. MSHA requests that
commenters include specific
information on alternatives, rationale for
suggested alternatives, safety benefits to
miners, costs of implementation,
technological and economic feasibility
considerations, and supporting data.
1. Exceptions

The proposal would exclude longwall
working sections. In MSHA’s
experience, coal hauling machines and
scoops are not routinely used on
longwall working sections. The working
section includes all areas of the coal
mine from the loading point of the
section to and including the working
faces.
MSHA solicits information and data
addressing whether scoops or coal
haulage machines cause a hazard to
miners on longwall working sections
such that they may require the use of
proximity detection. MSHA requests
that commenters include specific
information on rationale for not
excluding longwall working sections,
safety benefits to miners, costs of
implementation, technological and
economic feasibility considerations, and
supporting data.
MSHA is aware that some machines
operate both on and off the working
section and that some machines are only
used off the working section. The
proposal would require mine operators
to equip only coal hauling machines
and scoops used on the working section
with the machine-mounted components
of a proximity detection system. From
1984 through 2014, however, two fatal
accidents involving scoops occurred off
working sections. MSHA is not aware of
a fatal accident involving a coal hauling
machine traveling off a working section.
TABLE 1—NUMBER OF UNDERGROUND In addition, 13 nonfatal accidents
COAL MINE PREVENTABLE INJURIES/ occurred off working sections (two
FATALITIES ON THE WORKING SEC- involving coal hauling machines and 11
TION (1984–2014) BY MACHINE involving scoops) and 16 occurred in an
unknown location (one involving a coal
TYPE
hauling machine and 15 involving
scoops).
Machine type
Injuries
Fatalities
MSHA solicits comments on whether
Coal Hauling
the
proposed requirements should apply
Machines .......
123
31
Scoops ..............
56
11 to any mobile machines, other than coal
hauling machines and scoops, in use on
Total ..............
179
42 or off the working section. MSHA also
solicits comments on whether the
Note: Of these 42 fatalities, nine occurred
from 2010 through 2014. Four of those fatali- proposed requirements should apply to
ties occurred in 2013 and 2014: two involving coal hauling machines and scoops in
coal hauling machines and two involving use off the working section. MSHA
scoops.
requests that commenters include
MSHA would consider alternative
specific information on their rationale,
technologies that might provide
safety benefits to miners, costs of
protection from pinning, crushing, or
implementation, technological and
striking hazards at least equivalent to
economic feasibility considerations, and
that provided by proximity detection
supporting data.

PO 00000

Frm 00055

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\02SEP1.SGM

02SEP1

53074

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

2. MSHA-Approved Proximity Detection
Systems
The three methods to obtain MSHA
approval to add the machine-mounted
components of a proximity detection
system to a machine are as follows:
(1) A machine manufacturer can
apply for a Revised Approval
Modification Program (RAMP) approval.
(2) A mine operator can apply to the
Approval and Certification Center
(A&CC) for a field modification.
(3) A mine operator can notify the
MSHA district manager through a
district field change application for
electric machines.
MSHA offers an optional Proximity
Detection Acceptance (PDA) program
which allows a proximity detection
system manufacturer to obtain MSHA
acceptance for a proximity detection
system. This acceptance states that the
proximity detection system has been
evaluated under 30 CFR part 18 and is
suitable for incorporation on an MSHAapproved machine. It permits the
manufacturer or owner of a machine to
add the proximity detection system to a
machine by requesting MSHA to add the
acceptance number (PDA Number) to
the machine approval under one of
three methods listed above.
MSHA has approved four proximity
detection systems under existing
regulations for permissibility in 30 CFR
part 18 for use on continuous mining
machines. Two of these approved
systems have been installed on coal
hauling machines or scoops.
As of January 2015, there were 79 coal
hauling machines and 50 scoops
equipped with a proximity detection
system in use in underground coal
mines in the United States. Proximity
detection was adapted for use on coal
hauling machines and scoops by
adjusting the field generator
configuration to create appropriately
sized zones and by changing the method
for stopping machine movement. For
example, a proximity detection system
may be configured, as needed, to deenergize the pump motor to stop
continuous haulage machine movement
while a system installed on a shuttle car
may be configured to apply brakes.
MSHA is aware that a manufacturer
has installed machine-mounted
components on a continuous haulage
system and that the manufacturer has
demonstrated its performance to a mine
operator. MSHA has not observed the
operation of a proximity detection
system installed on a continuous
haulage system in an underground
mine. MSHA anticipates challenges
with adapting proximity detection
systems to continuous haulage systems

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Sep 01, 2015

Jkt 235001

due to the length of these machines and
the unique interaction with continuous
mining machines.
MSHA solicits comments on other
types of mobile machines that should be
required to be equipped with proximity
detection systems. MSHA specifically
solicits comments on circumstances
where it may be appropriate to require
loading machines, roof bolting
machines, and feeder breakers to be
equipped with a proximity detection
system. Comments should provide
specific information on rationale for
requiring other types of mobile
machines to be equipped with
proximity detection systems, safety
benefits to miners, technological and
economic feasibility considerations, and
supporting data.
Each proximity detection system
currently approved by MSHA for use in
underground coal mines in the United
States uses miner-wearable components.
These systems cannot protect any miner
who is not wearing a miner-wearable
component.
Miners on the working section often
work near coal hauling machines and
scoops. Each miner on a working
section can be exposed to pinning,
crushing, or striking hazards from these
machines and would need to wear a
miner-wearable component for
protection. The proposal would require
the mine operator to provide a minerwearable component to be worn by each
miner on the working section, except
longwall working sections. A working
section is defined in existing § 75.2 as
all areas of the coal mine from the
loading point of the section up to and
including the working faces.
To assess the costs of the proposed
rule, MSHA estimated that there are
seven miners per working section. In
addition, other persons may visit the
working section on occasion, such as
dust samplers, surveyors, electricians,
or mine examiners, and would need a
miner-wearable component.
MSHA solicits comments on the
numbers of persons who may be on the
working section during a single shift.
Comments should be specific and
include alternatives, rationale for
suggested alternatives, safety benefits to
miners, technological and economic
feasibility considerations, and
supporting data.
3. Proposed Phase-In Schedule for
Proximity Detection Systems on Coal
Hauling Machines and Scoops
Proposed § 75.1733(a) would phase in
the use of proximity detection systems
according to the following schedule.
Proposed § 75.1733(a)(1) would
require coal hauling machines and

PO 00000

Frm 00056

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

scoops manufactured after the effective
date of a final rule to meet the rule’s
requirements no later than 8 months
after the effective date of the final rule.
These machines would need to meet the
requirements in this section when
placed in service with a proximity
detection system. The Agency intends
that a machine is placed in service
when the machine equipped with a
proximity detection system is placed in
the underground coal mine.
Proposed § 75.1733(a)(2) would
require coal hauling machines or scoops
manufactured and equipped with a
proximity detection system on or before
the effective date of a final rule to meet
the rule’s requirements no later than 8
months after the effective date of the
final rule when modifications to the
existing proximity detection system can
be made underground; or 36 months
after the effective date of the final rule
when the existing proximity detection
system cannot be modified underground
or needs to be replaced with a new
proximity detection system.
Proposed § 75.1733(a)(3) would
require coal hauling machines and
scoops manufactured and not equipped
with a proximity detection system on or
before the effective date of a final rule
to meet the rule’s requirements no later
than 36 months after the effective date
of the final rule. These machines would
need to meet the requirements in this
section when placed in service with a
proximity detection system.
Several commenters on the RFI
recommended that MSHA consider a
phase-in approach with separate
compliance dates addressing new
equipment, rebuilt equipment, and
equipment in service. One commenter
encouraged MSHA to proceed
cautiously and to provide the time
required to assure the development of
reliable and effective systems. Another
commenter stated that machines should
be retrofitted with proximity detection
systems in a shop or during rebuild.
The proposed phase-in schedule
would provide an appropriate amount
of time for manufacturers to produce
proximity detection systems; for
manufacturers and mine operators to
install proximity detection systems on
newly manufactured machines or
modify in-service proximity detection
systems and machines; and for mine
operators to install proximity detection
systems on machines not equipped by
the effective date of a final rule.
In determining the schedule, MSHA
considered the availability of MSHAapproved proximity detection systems,
the estimated number of machines that
would be replaced by newly
manufactured machines during this

E:\FR\FM\02SEP1.SGM

02SEP1

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules
period, manufacturers’ capacity to
produce and install systems for these
machines, and manufacturers’ and mine
operators’ ability to produce and install
systems on existing equipment. The
phase-in schedule would allow mine
operators time to train their workforce
on proximity detection systems.
MSHA considers the date that the
machine was manufactured as the date
identified on the machine or otherwise
provided by the manufacturer. MSHA
considers coal hauling machines and
scoops to be equipped with a proximity
detection system when the machinemounted components are installed on
the machine and miners are provided
with the miner-wearable components.
The proposed rule would allow 8
months for mine operators to install
proximity detection systems on coal
hauling machines and scoops
manufactured after the effective date of
a final rule. These newly manufactured
machines can be equipped with
proximity detection systems as part of
the manufacturing process. MSHA
believes that this 8-month time period
would allow manufacturers and mine
operators sufficient time to obtain
MSHA approval under existing 30 CFR
parts 18 or 36 and install proximity
detection systems. The proposed 8month time period would also allow
mine operators time to inform and train
their workforce on proximity detection
systems. MSHA believes it is important
for coal hauling machines and scoops
equipped with a proximity detection
system to meet requirements when
placed in service to assure that miners
are protected from pinning, crushing,
and striking hazards.
The proposed rule would allow 8
months for mine operators to make any
needed modifications to proximity
detection systems that were installed on
coal hauling machines and scoops
before the effective date of a final rule.
Proximity detection systems approved
and in use on coal hauling machines or
scoops in underground mines have a
visual warning signal on the machinemounted component and both a visual
and audible warning signal on the
miner-wearable component. These
systems might require modification of
the proximity detection warning signals
to make them distinguishable from other
signals. MSHA believes that these
modifications could be done
underground during a maintenance
shift. Allowing 8 months for these
machines would also provide operators
time to obtain MSHA approvals for the
modifications and to provide training.
MSHA estimates that, as of January
2015, at least 79 coal hauling machines
and 50 scoops in use in underground

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Sep 01, 2015

Jkt 235001

coal mines have been equipped with a
proximity detection system.
The proposed rule would allow 36
months for mine operators to install
proximity detection systems on coal
hauling machines and scoops
manufactured and not equipped with a
proximity detection system on or before
the effective date of a final rule. This
time period would allow mine operators
time to schedule installations during
planned rebuilds or scheduled
maintenance and to train their
workforce on proximity detection
systems. MSHA believes it is important
for coal hauling machines and scoops
equipped with a proximity detection
system to meet requirements when
placed in service to assure that miners
are protected from pinning, crushing,
and striking hazards. MSHA estimates
that, as of January 2015, there are 1,283
coal hauling machines and 704 scoops
in service on the working sections in
underground coal mines that would
need to be equipped with a proximity
detection system. MSHA would also
provide 36 months to mine operators
with mobile machines already equipped
with a proximity detection system that
would require the installation of a new
proximity detection system or
modifications to the system could not be
done underground to meet the rule’s
requirements.
This proposed rule would also apply
to diesel-powered coal hauling
machines and scoops on the working
section. MSHA is unaware of any
permissible diesel-powered machines
equipped with proximity detection
systems in the United States. MSHA
anticipates challenges with installing
proximity detection systems on dieselpowered machines due to the additional
modifications required to the
mechanical systems.
MSHA acknowledges that it will take
time to obtain MSHA approvals to equip
coal hauling machines and scoops with
proximity detection systems. MSHA
must approve miner-wearable
components and electrical machines
equipped with proximity detection
systems as permissible equipment under
existing regulations in 30 CFR part 18.
Diesel-powered machines must be
approved under existing regulations in
30 CFR part 36.
MSHA solicits comments on the
proposed phase-in schedules. MSHA
also solicits comments on what, if any,
modifications may be needed on mobile
machines already equipped with
proximity detection systems. MSHA
also solicits comments on whether the
modifications could be made
underground, and whether there are any
issues that may impact the proposed

PO 00000

Frm 00057

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

53075

phase-in schedules. Comments should
be specific and include alternatives,
rationale for suggested alternatives,
safety benefits to miners, technological
and economic feasibility considerations,
and supporting data.
4. Training Requirements for Miners
Working Near Machines Equipped With
Proximity Detection Systems
In response to the RFI, some
commenters stated that miners will
need task training when machines are
equipped with a proximity detection
system. As the proximity detection
systems are phased in, mine operators
would be required to provide miners
with new task training under existing
part 48. MSHA intends that mine
operators would address safety issues
that might arise during the proposed
phase-in schedule, such as some
machines being equipped with
proximity detection systems while
others are not, through existing new task
training requirements, with an emphasis
on basic safety rules and practices.
MSHA believes that as mobile machines
are equipped with proximity detection
there will be an added layer of safety to
the basic safety rules and practices,
assuring that the risk of injury would
not increase during the phase-in period.
Miners working near mobile machines
equipped with proximity detection
systems would engage in different and
unfamiliar machine operating
procedures resulting from new work
positions, machine movements, and
new visual or auditory signals. Existing
§ 48.7(a) requires that miners assigned
to new work tasks as mobile equipment
operators not perform new work tasks
until training has been completed. As
required under existing § 48.7(a)(3) for
new or modified machines and
equipment, equipment and machine
operators must be instructed in safe
operating procedures applicable to new
or modified machines or equipment to
be installed or put into operation in the
mine, which require new or different
operating procedures. In addition,
existing § 48.7(c) requires miners
assigned a new task not covered in
existing § 48.7(a) be instructed in the
safety and health aspects and safe work
procedures of the task prior to
performing such task.
Mine operators would be required to
provide new task and equipment
training on the proper functioning of the
proximity detection system before
requiring miners to operate or work near
a machine equipped with a proximity
detection system. New task training
(which is separate from new miner
training under existing § 48.5 and
annual refresher training under existing

E:\FR\FM\02SEP1.SGM

02SEP1

53076

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

§ 48.8) must occur before miners operate
machines equipped with a proximity
detection system. New task training
helps assure that miners have the
necessary skills to perform new tasks
prior to assuming responsibility for the
tasks. Mine operators should assure that
this training includes hands-on training
during supervised non-production
activities. The hands-on training allows
miners to experience how the systems
work and to locate the appropriate work
positions around machines. Based on
Agency experience, the hands-on
training is most effective when provided
in miners’ work locations.
MSHA solicits comments on the
proposed training for miners who
operate or work near machines
equipped with proximity detection
systems. Comments should address the
type, frequency, and content of training
in addition to which miners should be
trained. Comments should be specific
and include alternatives, rationale for
suggested alternatives, safety benefits to
miners, technological and economic
feasibility considerations, and
supporting data.
5. Request for Comments on Requiring
Proximity Detection Systems on Mobile
Machines in Underground Metal and
Nonmetal Mines
Metal and nonmetal mine operators
would not be required to equip
machines with proximity detection
systems under this proposal. In
response to the RFI, some commenters
suggested that proximity detection
systems should not be required in
underground stone mines. These
commenters stated that they were not
aware of pinning, crushing, or striking
accidents in underground stone mines
that might have been prevented by
proximity detection systems. One
commenter stated that applying
proximity detection technology to the
equipment used in underground stone
mines would not serve to reduce the
risk of injuries and fatalities. Two
commenters stated that underground
stone miners work in enclosed cabs and
are not exposed to the hazards
presented by remote controlled
equipment. Three commenters stated
that an electromagnetic field from a
proximity detection system could set off
electric detonators used in underground
stone mines. Two commenters also
stated that proximity detection systems
had not been tested on equipment in
underground metal and nonmetal
mines.
MSHA has analyzed data on pinning,
crushing, and striking accidents in
underground metal and nonmetal
mines, and related equipment. MSHA

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Sep 01, 2015

Jkt 235001

estimates that, based on the Agency’s
most recent analysis, there are 66
continuous mining machines, 80 shuttle
cars, and 1,371 scoops, loaders, loadhaul-dumps, and mucking machines
used in underground metal and
nonmetal mines. Since 1984, five
fatalities have occurred in underground
metal and nonmetal mines where the
use of a proximity detection system
could have prevented the accident
(since these miners were found in a
proximity detection system warning/
stopping zone): one involving a
continuous mining machine and four
involving a scoop, loader, load-hauldump machine, or mucking machine.
Generally, mining conditions in
underground metal and nonmetal mines
are not the same as conditions in
underground coal mines. Differences
include wider and higher entries, which
improve visibility and allow more room
for miners to work around the
equipment. The Agency’s experience
with use of proximity detection systems
in the United States has focused on
underground coal mines. Therefore, in
response to comments to the RFI and
the less frequent occurrence of crushing,
striking, and pinning accidents in
underground metal and nonmetal
mines, the proposed requirements are
limited to underground coal mines.
MSHA solicits comments on whether
the Agency should require proximity
detection systems on machines used in
underground metal and nonmetal
mines, and if so, which types of
machines and in what timeframes.
Comments should be specific and
include alternatives, rationale for
suggested alternatives, safety benefits to
miners, technological and economic
feasibility considerations, and
supporting data.
6. Request for Comments on Requiring
Miners To Wear Reflective Clothing in
Underground Coal and Metal and
Nonmetal Mines
MSHA is also considering a
requirement that miners in underground
mines wear reflective material in order
to reduce the hazards associated with
poor visibility. Existing § 75.1719–4(d)
requires that each person who goes
underground in a coal mine wear a hard
hat or hard cap with a minimum of six
square inches of reflecting tape or
equivalent paint or material on each
side and back. Metal and nonmetal
mines do not have a similar
requirement. In MSHA’s experience,
however, many miners in underground
coal and metal and nonmetal mines also
wear clothing with reflective material.
One of the recommendations in MSHA’s
2010 safety initiative, Safety Practices

PO 00000

Frm 00058

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

around Shuttle Cars and Scoops in
Underground Coal Mines, was that
‘‘Miners should always wear reflective
clothing so that they can be clearly seen
by the shuttle car and scoop drivers.’’
MSHA solicits comments on whether
the Agency should require that miners
wear reflective material to make them
more visible to equipment operators
and, if so, how much and where.
Comments should be specific and
include alternatives, rationale for
suggested alternatives, safety benefits to
miners, feasibility considerations, and
supporting data.
B. § 75.1733(b) Requirements for
Proximity Detection Systems
Proposed § 75.1733(b)(1) would
require that a proximity detection
system cause a machine to stop before
contacting a miner except for a miner
who is in the on-board operator’s
compartment. This proposed
requirement would apply to coal
hauling machines and scoops on the
working section to prevent pinning,
crushing, or striking accidents. MSHA
intends that the proximity detection
system would stop all movement of the
machine, such as tramming, conveyor
chain movement, and raising or
lowering the bucket of a scoop that
could cause the machine to contact a
miner. The machine would remain
stopped while any miner is within a
programmed stop zone.
In the RFI, MSHA asked for comments
on the size and shape of the area around
machines that a proximity detection
system monitors and how systems can
be programmed and installed to provide
different zones of protection depending
on machine function. Some commenters
stated that an effective proximity
detection system should cause the
machine to stop before a miner enters
the hazardous area around the machine.
Several commenters suggested that
protection zones should be largest when
tramming and that reduced protection
zones are needed for certain mining
operations.
Some commenters stated that zone
size should be determined using a risk
assessment considering the speed at
which the proximity detection system
can alert the operator, the reaction time
of the operator, and the number of
people in the working area. Another
commenter stated that work practices
vary among mines so that one specified
zone may not work for all mines.
In its comments on the RFI, NIOSH
stated that the goal of a proximity
detection system should be to prevent
machine actions or situations that injure
workers while not placing restrictions
on how the workers do their jobs.

E:\FR\FM\02SEP1.SGM

02SEP1

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules
NIOSH also stated that the total time
required for performing proximity
detection system functions, plus a safety
factor, should be used to define the size
of detection zones around machines.
NIOSH stated that the total time
required includes: (1) Detection of a
potential victim; (2) decision processing
to determine if a collision-avoidance
function is needed; (3) initiation of the
collision-avoidance function; and (4)
implementation of the collisionavoidance function. NIOSH stated that
any rule should be performance-based.
MSHA’s experience with proximity
detection systems indicates that causing
a machine to stop before contacting a
miner would provide appropriate
protection to prevent pinning, crushing,
and striking accidents. Machines
traveling at faster speeds generally need
more time to stop. MSHA has observed
proximity detection systems that are
designed to slow a machine before
causing it to stop. A performance-based
approach would allow mine operators
and manufacturers to address mine- and
machine-specific conditions when
determining the appropriate settings for
a proximity detection system.
Performance-based requirements focus
on attaining objectives, such as stopping
a machine before contacting a miner,
rather than being prescriptive in how
the result is achieved, such as stopping
within a specified distance. Mine- and
machine-specific conditions could
include steep or slippery roadways,
tramming speed of machinery, location
of the miner-wearable component, and
the accuracy of the proximity detection
system. Mine operators would be
responsible for programming a
proximity detection system to initiate
the stop-movement function so that the
machine stops before contacting a
miner.
MSHA solicits comments on whether
to require a proximity detection system
to cause the machine to slow before
causing it to stop and, if so, what
requirement would be appropriate.
MSHA also solicits comments on
effective methods or controls, working
in conjunction with the proximity
detection system, to protect the onboard operator from sudden stops.
MSHA also requests comments on what
types of machine movement the
proximity detection system should stop,
beyond movement related to tramming
coal hauling machines and scoops.
Comments addressing these issues
should be specific, and include
alternatives, rationale for suggested
alternatives, safety benefits to miners,
technological and economic feasibility
considerations, and supporting data.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Sep 01, 2015

Jkt 235001

During MSHA’s visit to South Africa,
staff observed that one mine operator
designed its proximity detection
systems to stop scoops eight feet from a
miner and to stop shuttle cars six feet
from a miner. Prior to the introduction
of proximity detection systems at their
mines, the company’s policy was that
miners must maintain a minimum
distance of one meter (approximately
three feet) from all operating mobile
machines. MSHA considered proposing
a prescriptive requirement that would
specify that a machine must stop no
closer than three feet from a miner.
MSHA also considered proposing other
specific stopping distances, e.g., six feet
from a miner, but decided on a
performance-based approach.
MSHA solicits comments on whether
a performance-based approach would be
appropriate. Comments should be
specific, and include alternatives,
rationale for suggested alternatives,
safety benefits to miners, technological
and economic feasibility considerations,
and supporting data.
The interaction of multiple machine
types equipped with proximity
detection systems is likely to cause
changes in work practices. These
changes would affect where miners are
positioned near machines and routes
that machines travel. For example,
continuous mining machines and coal
hauling machines must get close, and
often touch, during the transfer of
material from one machine to the other.
When a coal hauling machine equipped
with a proximity detection system gets
near a continuous mining machine with
a proximity detection system, the
overlap of the two protection zones may
limit where miners may position
themselves (1) to remain safe, (2) avoid
activation of warning signals, or (3)
avoid unintentionally stopping the
machines.
MSHA solicits comments on how the
use of proximity detection systems and
the overlap of protection zones on
multiple types of machines operating on
the same working section might affect
miners’ work positions, such as a
continuous mining machine operator
who may need to work close to the
continuous mining machine when
cutting coal or rock. Comments should
be specific, and include alternatives,
rationale for suggested alternatives,
safety benefits to miners, technological
and economic feasibility considerations,
and supporting data.
Proposed § 75.1733(b)(1) would
provide an exception for a miner who is
in an on-board operator’s compartment.
Machines with an on-board operator
would not function if the proximity
detection system prevents machine

PO 00000

Frm 00059

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

53077

movement when a miner is on the
machine. The proposed rule would
require machines to stop before
contacting any miner not in the
operator’s compartment.
MSHA observed that, in South Africa,
the continuous mining machine
operator was provided a smaller
protection zone around the shuttle car
than for other miners. This allowed the
continuous mining machine operator to
be closer to the shuttle car when it got
near the continuous mining machine for
loading. The proximity detection system
on the shuttle car caused the machine
to slow down as it neared the
continuous mining machine operator,
reducing the pinning, crushing, or
striking hazard. Similarly, an
underground coal mine operator in the
United States, working with a proximity
detection system manufacturer,
developed a system which would stop
a coal hauling machine when it got
within approximately ten feet of a
miner. However, the continuous mining
machine operator can press a button on
the miner-wearable component and
allow the coal hauling machine to
slowly approach the continuous mining
machine.
Commenters to the RFI generally
stated that machines with an on-board
operator’s compartment should have a
proximity detection system that allows
machines to function when the operator
is in the operator’s compartment. One
commenter stated that a proximity
detection system can include exclusion
zones to allow mobile machines to move
while a miner is in the exclusion zone
but still protect other miners.
Some coal hauling machines and
scoops may be used to transport mine
personnel if certain safeguards are in
place. (MSHA Program Policy Manual,
Vol. V—Coal Mines, Criteria—Mantrips,
October 2003 (Release V–34), pp. 126–
127.) Under the proposed rule, a coal
hauling machine or scoop equipped
with a proximity detection system that
is being used to transport mine
personnel would not operate if miners
wore their miner-wearable components.
Both the coal hauling machine or scoop
being used to transport miners and the
miners being transported, however,
would have to be equipped with a
properly functioning proximity
detection component before they enter
the working section. Under one possible
scenario, the coal hauling machine or
scoop could stop to allow miners to get
off before it continues onto the working
section. Miners could then don a minerwearable component before entering the
working section.
MSHA solicits comments on the
exclusion zone for the on-board

E:\FR\FM\02SEP1.SGM

02SEP1

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

53078

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules

operator. MSHA also requests
information on issues related to the use
of coal hauling machines or scoops,
equipped with proximity detection
systems, to transport miners to the
working section. Comments should be
specific, and include alternatives,
rationale for suggested alternatives,
safety benefits to miners, technological
and economic feasibility considerations,
and supporting data.
Proposed § 75.1733(b)(2) would
require the proximity detection system
to provide warning signals,
distinguishable from other signals, that
alert miners before the system causes a
machine to stop: an audible and visual
warning signal on any miner-wearable
component and a visual warning signal
on the machine.
In the RFI, MSHA asked for
information on the most effective
protection that proximity detection
systems could provide. In response,
some commenters stated that a
proximity detection system should
include a warning prior to causing the
machine to stop movement. One
commenter stated that proximity
detection systems should include a
range of escalating alerts depending on
the proximity to a hazard.
MSHA-approved proximity detection
systems alert miners before causing
machine movement to stop. The
proposal would require audible and
visual warning signals on any minerwearable component and a visual
warning signal on the machine before
the system causes the machine to stop.
The audible and visual warnings
provided by miner-wearable
components allow the miner wearing
the component to move away from the
machine before the proximity detection
system causes the machine to stop. The
visual warning provided on the machine
would be required to alert the on-board
operator.
Two proximity detection systems
currently approved for use on mobile
machines in the United States provide
an audible and visual warning signal
from a miner-wearable component and
a visual warning signal from the
machine before causing a machine to
stop. In MSHA’s experience, providing
warning signals before causing the
machine to stop provides a margin of
safety to allow a miner near the moving
machine an opportunity to be proactive
and move away from the machine to
avoid danger.
MSHA solicits comments on the
proposed requirement that the
proximity detection system provide
audible and visual warning signals on
miner-wearable components and a
visual warning signal on the mobile

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Sep 01, 2015

Jkt 235001

machines. Early research suggests that
providing warnings at varying distances
may be appropriate dependent on the
machine speed. (Sanders and Kelly,
1981.) Machine operators often need to
redirect their attention from the front to
the rear of the machine, and in some
cases, must switch seats when changing
directions. As a result, a visual warning
signal on the machine may not always
be in the operator’s direct line of sight.
MSHA solicits comments on whether
requiring audible warning signals in
addition to visual warning signals on
the machine would help assure that
miners, including the machine operator,
know that a miner is in the warning
zone and the machine is about to stop.
MSHA also solicits comments on
whether requiring the use of a specific
visual warning on the machine, e.g.,
strobe lights, clustered light-emitting
diode (LED) lights, or other types of
visual signals, would help assure that
the visual warning alerts miners near
the machine, including the machine
operator. Comments should be specific
and include alternatives, rationale for
suggested alternatives, address how the
alternatives would practically and
effectively be implemented, safety
benefits to miners, technological and
economic feasibility considerations, and
supporting data.
Proposed § 75.1733(b)(3) would
require that a proximity detection
system provide a visual signal on the
machine that indicates the machinemounted components are functioning
properly.
Commenters, in response to the RFI,
generally stated that a proximity
detection system should include system
diagnostics and indicate that the system
is functioning properly. In its comments
on the RFI, NIOSH stated that each
proximity detection system should
perform self-diagnostics to identify
software or hardware problems.
In MSHA’s experience, proximity
detection systems used on coal hauling
machines and scoops provide a visual
signal to indicate the system is
functioning properly. This provides an
added margin of safety and is consistent
with standard safety practices. The
visual signal allows miners to readily
determine that a proximity detection
system is functioning properly. MSHA
believes that an unobstructed visual
signal is preferable to an audible signal
for providing feedback to miners
because a visual signal cannot be
obscured by surrounding noise. An LED
may be an acceptable visual signal.
MSHA considers the proximity
detection system to be functioning
properly when the system is working as
designed and will cause the machine to

PO 00000

Frm 00060

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

stop before contacting a miner; provide
audible and visual warning signals,
distinguishable from other signals, that
alert miners, including the machine
operator, before causing the machine to
stop; provide the required warning
signals on the machine; and prevent
movement of the machine, except for
purposes of repair, if any machinemounted component is not working as
intended.
MSHA solicits comments on the
proposed requirement. Comments
should be specific and include
alternatives, rationale for suggested
alternatives, safety benefits to miners,
technological and economic feasibility
considerations, and supporting data.
Proposed § 75.1733(b)(4) would
require that a proximity detection
system prevent movement of the
machine if any machine-mounted
component of the system is not
functioning properly. However, a
system may allow machine movement if
an audible or visual warning signal,
distinguishable from other signals, is
provided during movement. Such
movement would be permitted only for
purposes of relocating the machine from
a location that is unsafe for the miner
conducting repairs.
Commenters in response to the RFI
had different opinions on whether
MSHA should permit an operator to
override the shutdown feature of a
proximity detection system to allow
machine movement in a particular
circumstance. One commenter stated
that a proximity detection system must
provide a continuous self-check
capability so that if the system is not
functioning properly, the machine
cannot be operated. This same
commenter stated that only an
appointed person should have the
authority to override a proximity
detection system. Several commenters
stated that a proximity detection system
should allow for temporary
deactivation, such as an emergency
override, in case a system is not
functioning properly while a machine is
under unsupported roof. Another
commenter, however, stated that a
proximity detection system should not
have an override feature.
MSHA intends that proximity
detection systems would prevent all
machine movement if any machinemounted component is not functioning
properly. This prevention of movement
includes tramming, conveyor chain
movement, raising or lowering the
bucket of a scoop, and any movements
that could cause the machine to contact
a miner. A coal hauling machine or
scoop equipped with a proximity
detection system that is malfunctioning

E:\FR\FM\02SEP1.SGM

02SEP1

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules
could expose miners to pinning,
crushing, and striking hazards. When
any machine-mounted component of the
system is not functioning properly,
preventing all machine movement helps
to assure that miners are protected.
The proposed rule would allow the
machine’s proximity detection system to
be overridden or bypassed to move the
machine from an unsafe location to
protect miners. Overriding or bypassing
the proximity detection system should
only occur for the time necessary to
move the machine to a safe repair
location. The proposed provision to
allow the machine to be moved would
require an audible or visual warning
signal during the movement. In MSHA’s
experience, either type of warning
signal is sufficient to warn miners that
the machine-mounted component of the
proximity detection system is not
functioning properly.
MSHA solicits comments on the
proposed requirements. MSHA requests
comments addressing whether requiring
both an audible and visual warning
signal is needed to assure that all miners
on the working section know that the
machine-mounted component is not
functioning properly. Comments should
be specific and include alternatives,
rationale for suggested alternatives,
safety benefits to miners, technological
and economic feasibility considerations,
and supporting data.
Proposed § 75.1733(b)(5) would
require that a proximity detection
system be installed to prevent
interference that adversely affects
performance of any electrical system.
Some commenters in response to the
RFI stated that interference of proximity
detection systems with other mine
electrical systems is a concern.
However, manufacturers of the
approved proximity detection systems
stated that their systems do not have
interference issues. A commenter stated
that electromagnetic interference may
prevent these systems from providing
complete protection to miners. Several
commenters stated that systems must be
designed and tested for possible and
known sources of interference before a
requirement for proximity detection is
issued. A commenter expressed concern
that a proximity detection system may
detonate explosives due to
electromagnetic field interference.
Electrical systems used in the mine,
including proximity detection systems,
can adversely affect the function of
other electrical systems through the
generation of electromagnetic
interference, which includes radio
frequency interference. MSHA has not
received reports of adverse interference,
with or from other electrical systems,

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Sep 01, 2015

Jkt 235001

associated with the approximately 583
proximity detection systems in use in
underground coal mines. However,
there have been instances of adverse
performance of a remote controlled
system, an atmospheric monitoring
system, and a machine-mounted
methane monitoring system when a
hand-held radio was in use near the
affected systems. Electromagnetic
output of approved proximity detection
systemsis substantially lower and uses
different frequencies than other mine
electrical systems, such as
communication and atmospheric
monitoring systems. It is less likely for
a proximity detection system to
encounter interference, even in low
seam mines. Under the proposal, the
mine operator would be required to
evaluate a proximity detection system
used on coal hauling machines and
scoops for interference that adversely
affects other electrical systems,
including blasting circuits and other
proximity detection systems, in the
mine and take adequate steps to prevent
adverse interference. Steps could
include design considerations, such as
the addition of shielding, or providing
adequate separation between electrical
systems.
MSHA solicits comments on the
proposed requirement that a proximity
detection system be installed in a
manner that prevents interference that
adversely affects performance of any
electrical system. MSHA also solicits
comments on any experience or issues
related to the use of proximity detection
systems from different manufacturers on
the same working section. MSHA
requests comments on any experience or
issues related to the use of a single
miner-wearable component with
proximity detection systems from
different manufacturers or with different
models from the same manufacturer.
Comments should be specific and
include alternatives, rationale for
suggested alternatives, safety benefits to
miners, technological and economic
feasibility considerations, and
supporting data.
Proposed § 75.1733(b)(6) would
require that a proximity detection
system be installed and maintained in
proper operating condition by a person
trained in the installation and
maintenance of the system.
A commenter in response to the RFI
stated that maintenance personnel and
machine operators will need training to
assure that they understand how the
proximity detection system functions
and any maintenance requirements.
This commenter also stated that proper
installation of a proximity detection
system is critical for reliable

PO 00000

Frm 00061

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

53079

performance. Another commenter said
that a few hours of classroom
instruction and approximately one hour
of underground training for machine
operators has proven adequate and that
maintenance training requires about
four hours.
Based on MSHA’s experience with
proximity detection systems, proper
functioning of a proximity detection
system is directly related to the quality
of the installation and maintenance of
the system. This proposed training
requirement for installing and
maintaining a proximity detection
system is in addition to training
required under existing 30 CFR part 48.
The new training requirement would
help assure that the person performing
installation and maintenance of a
proximity detection system understands
the system and can perform the work
necessary to assure that the system
operates properly. Appropriate training
could include adjusting detection zones,
trouble-shooting electrical connections,
and replacing and adjusting machinemounted and miner-wearable
components.
MSHA anticipates that mine operators
would assign miners to perform most
maintenance activities, but
representatives of the manufacturer may
perform some maintenance. Based on
Agency experience, mine operators
would generally arrange for proximity
detection system manufacturers to
provide appropriate training to miners
for installation and maintenance.
Miners receiving training from
manufacturers’ representatives would,
in most cases, provide training for other
miners who may undertake installation
and maintenance duties at the mine. In
MSHA’s experience, many mines use
the train-the-trainer concept for
installation and maintenance activities
related to certain mining equipment.
A system must operate properly to
protect miners near the machine. This
includes the machine-mounted
components and the miner-wearable
components. MSHA would expect the
mine operator to demonstrate that a
proximity detection system in use at
their mine, on a coal hauling machine
or scoop, is installed and maintained in
proper operating condition. Mine
operators could determine if the system
is maintained in proper operating
condition using the procedures
described in the system manufacturer’s
instructions.
When determining whether the
proximity detection system is installed
and maintained in proper operating
condition, the position of the minerwearable component on the miner and
the distance from the closest surface of

E:\FR\FM\02SEP1.SGM

02SEP1

53080

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules

the machine to the miner-wearable
component should be considered. Mineand machine-specific conditions,
including steep or slippery roadways,
tramming speed of machinery, location
of the miner-wearable component, and
the accuracy of the proximity detection
system, should also be considered.
MSHA solicits comments on mine
operators’ experiences with maintaining
proximity detection systems in proper
operating condition. Comments should
be specific and include alternatives,
rationale for suggested alternatives,
safety benefits to miners, technological
and economic feasibility considerations,
and supporting data.

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

C. § 75.1733(c) Proximity Detection
System Checks
Proposed § 75.1733(c) would address
requirements for proximity detection
system checks.
Proposed § 75.1733(c)(1) would
require that mine operators designate a
person to perform a check of machinemounted components of the proximity
detection system to verify that
components are intact and the system is
functioning properly, and to take action
to correct defects: (1) Before the
machine is operated at the beginning of
each shift when the machine is to be
used; (2) immediately prior to the time
the machine is to be operated if not in
use at the beginning of a shift; or (3)
within one hour of a shift change if the
shift change occurs without an
interruption in production. For (1) and
(2), MSHA anticipates that the check
would occur before the machine is
permitted to enter the working section.
In response to the RFI, several
commenters stated that a proximity
detection system should be checked at
the beginning of each shift to verify that
it is functioning properly. NIOSH
commented that the machine operator
should have a set of procedures to
evaluate the system at the start of each
shift.
The person designated to perform the
check would verify that machinemounted components are intact and the
system is functioning properly.
Machine-mounted components
mounted on the outer surfaces of a
machine could be damaged when the
machine contacts a rib or heavy material
falls against the machine. The check
would also include observation of
appropriate audible and visual warning
signals. If any defect is found, the
proposal would require it to be
corrected before using the machine.
Correcting defects before the machine is
used helps assure that the system
functions properly and helps prevent

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Sep 01, 2015

Jkt 235001

miners’ exposure to pinning, crushing,
and striking hazards.
The check of the machine-mounted
components would supplement the
design requirement in proposed
paragraph (b)(4) that the systems
prevent movement of the machine if any
machine-mounted component is not
functioning properly. For example, the
system may not be able to detect a
displaced field generator, which could
affect proper function. The check would
help assure that machine-mounted
components are positioned correctly
and mounted properly on the machine
and that the system will warn miners
and stop machine movement
appropriately.
Under existing § 48.7, miners who
perform the required check must receive
training in the health and safety aspects
and safe operating procedures for work
tasks, equipment, and machinery. In
most cases, MSHA anticipates that the
mine operator will designate the person
operating a coal hauling machine or
scoop to make the check of the
proximity detection system.
The check in proposed § 75.1733(c)(1)
would help assure that proximity
detection systems function properly
between the weekly examinations
required under existing §§ 75.512 and
75.1914. The examination of electric
machines under existing § 75.512 must
include the machine-mounted
components of a proximity detection
system. Existing § 75.512 requires
electric equipment, including the
machine-mounted components of
proximity detection systems, to be
examined, tested, and properly
maintained by a qualified person at least
weekly to assure safe operating
conditions. When the qualified person
finds a potentially dangerous condition
on electric equipment, such equipment
must be removed from service until
such condition is corrected. Under
existing § 75.1725, mobile and
stationary machinery and equipment,
which includes coal hauling machines
and scoops, must be maintained in safe
operating condition or removed from
service. In addition, existing
§ 75.1914(a) requires that dieselpowered equipment be maintained in
approved and safe condition or removed
from service. Under existing
§ 75.1914(f), machine-mounted
components of proximity detection
systems on diesel-powered machines
must be examined weekly.
MSHA solicits comments on the
proposed requirement. Comments
should be specific and include
alternatives, rationale for suggested
alternatives, safety benefits to miners,

PO 00000

Frm 00062

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

technological and economic feasibility
considerations, and supporting data.
Proposed § 75.1733(c)(2) would
require that miner-wearable components
be checked for proper operation at the
beginning of each shift that the
component is to be used and that
defects be corrected before the
components are used.
Several commenters on the RFI stated
that the miner-wearable component
should be checked at the beginning of
each shift and that minimal training is
necessary for miners to learn this task.
The proposed requirement that minerwearable components be checked for
proper operation at the beginning of
each shift that the component is to be
used would help assure that the miner
is protected before getting near a
machine. MSHA anticipates that each
miner equipped with a miner-wearable
component would check the component
to see that it is not damaged and has
sufficient power. The proximity
detection systems that use these
components can only function properly
if the miner-wearable components have
sufficient power.
MSHA intends that this check would
be similar to the check that a miner
performs on a cap lamp prior to the
beginning of a shift. A mine operator,
however, could also designate a person
to check miner-wearable components
before they are used. Mine operators
must provide new task training, under
30 CFR part 48, for miners who will be
checking the miner-wearable
components. If any defect is found, the
proposal would require it to be
corrected before using the component.
This helps assure that the minerwearable component functions properly
and helps prevent miners’ exposure to
pinning, crushing, and striking hazards.
If a miner-wearable component
malfunctions during the shift, the miner
wearing the component would have to
leave the section until provided with a
properly functioning miner-wearable
component.
MSHA solicits comments on the
proposed requirements. Comments
should be specific and include
alternatives, rationale for suggested
alternatives, safety benefits to miners,
technological and economic feasibility
considerations, and supporting data.
D. § 75.1733(d) Certification and
Records
Proposed § 75.1733(d) would address
certification and records requirements
for proximity detection systems.
Proposed § 75.1733(d)(1) would
require, at the completion of the check
under proposed paragraph (c)(1), that a
certified person under existing § 75.100

E:\FR\FM\02SEP1.SGM

02SEP1

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules
certify by initials, date, and time that
the check was conducted. Defects found
as a result of the check, including
corrective actions and date of corrective
action, would be required to be
recorded.
The certification that would be
required under proposed paragraph
(d)(1) would help assure compliance
and provide miners on the section a
means to confirm that the required
check under proposed (c)(1) was made.
MSHA anticipates that, in most cases,
the person making the certification of
the on-shift examination under existing
§ 75.362(g)(2) would also make the
certification of this check at the same
time. The person making the check
could communicate to a certified person
that the check was performed.
The record of defects and corrective
actions as a result of the check required
under proposed paragraph (c)(1) of this
section would be made by the
completion of the shift, which is
consistent with the requirements for
records of hazardous conditions in
existing § 75.363(b). If no defect is
found, no record is needed. The
requirement in proposed paragraph
(d)(1) of this section would require a
record of defects and corrective actions.
Records of defects and corrective
actions can be used to show a history of
machine-mounted component defects at
the mine and alert miners,
representatives of miners, mine
management, manufacturers, and MSHA
of recurring problems and ways to
address problems.
Proposed § 75.1733(d)(2) would
require the operator to record defects
found as a result of the check of minerwearable components in proposed
paragraph (c)(2) of this section,
including corrective actions and date of
corrective action. This record can be
used to show a history of minerwearable component defects that can be
used to alert miners, representatives of
miners, mine management,
manufacturers, and MSHA of recurring
problems and ways to address problems.
For miner-wearable components, no
record would be needed unless a defect
is found. A certification of the check for
proper operation of miner-wearable
components that would be required
under proposed paragraph (c)(2) is not
necessary because miners can readily
check to confirm that the component is
working.
Proposed § 75.1733(d)(3) would
require that the operator make and
retain records of the persons trained in
the installation and maintenance of
proximity detection systems. MSHA
anticipates that many mine operators
would train qualified persons, as

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Sep 01, 2015

Jkt 235001

defined by existing § 75.153, to install
and perform maintenance on proximity
detections systems; but the mine
operator may train another miner who is
not included on the list of certified and
qualified persons required by existing
§ 75.159. A mine operator may make
this record of the persons trained using
existing MSHA Form 5000–23.
Consistent with existing practice, mine
operators would not need to make and
retain records of training for proximity
detection system manufacturers’
employees who install or perform
maintenance on the systems.
Proposed § 75.1733(d)(4) would
require that the mine operator maintain
records under proposed § 75.1733(d)(1),
(d)(2), and (d)(3) in a secure book or
electronically in a secure computer
system not susceptible to alteration.
Based on MSHA’s experience with other
safety and health records, the Agency
believes that records should be
maintained so that they cannot be
altered. In addition, electronic storage of
information and access through
computers is an increasingly common
business practice in the mining
industry. This proposed provision
would permit the use of electronically
stored records provided they are secure,
are not susceptible to alteration, are able
to capture the information and
signatures required, and are accessible
to the representative of miners and
MSHA.
Care must be taken in the use of
electronic records to assure that the
secure computer system will not allow
information to be overwritten or deleted
after being entered. MSHA believes that
electronic records meeting these criteria
are practical and as reliable as paper
records. MSHA also believes that once
records are properly completed and
reviewed, mine management can use
them to evaluate whether the same
conditions or problems, if any, are
recurring, and whether corrective
measures are effective. The proposal
provides mine operators flexibility to
maintain the records in a secure book or
electronically in a secure computer
system that they already use to satisfy
existing recordkeeping requirements.
Proposed § 75.1733(d)(5) would
require that the mine operator retain
records under proposed § 75.1733(d)(1),
(d)(2), and (d)(3) for at least one year
and make them available for inspection
by authorized representatives of the
Secretary and representatives of miners.
The operator may provide access
electronically or by providing paper
copies of records. MSHA believes that
keeping records for one year provides a
history of the conditions documented at
the mine to alert miners, representatives

PO 00000

Frm 00063

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

53081

of miners, mine management,
manufacturers, and MSHA of recurring
problems and ways to correct problems.
MSHA solicits comments on the
recordkeeping requirements in proposed
§ 75.1733(d). Comments should be
specific and include alternatives,
rationale for suggested alternatives,
safety benefits to miners, technological
and economic feasibility considerations,
and supporting data.
III. Preliminary Regulatory Economic
Analysis
A. Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and
13563
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct agencies to assess all costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
effects, distributive impacts, and
equity). Executive Order 13563
emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of
reducing costs, of harmonizing rules,
and of promoting flexibility. To comply
with these Executive Orders, MSHA has
prepared a Preliminary Regulatory
Economic Analysis (PREA) for the
proposed rule. The PREA contains
supporting data and explanation, which
is summarized in this preamble,
including the covered mining industry,
costs and benefits, feasibility, small
business impacts, and information
collection requirements. The PREA can
be accessed electronically at http://
www.msha.gov/REGSINF5.HTM. A copy
of the PREA can be obtained from
MSHA’s Office of Standards,
Regulations and Variances at the
address in the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble. MSHA is seeking robust
comments on the validity of the
Agency’s costs and benefits estimates
presented in this preamble and in the
PREA, and on the supporting data and
assumptions the Agency used to
develop these estimates.
Under E.O. 12866, a significant
regulatory action is one meeting any of
a number of specified conditions,
including the following: Having an
annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more, creating a serious
inconsistency or interfering with an
action of another agency, materially
altering the budgetary impact of
entitlements or the rights of entitlement
recipients, or raising novel legal or
policy issues. The Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) has determined that
the proposed rule is a significant

E:\FR\FM\02SEP1.SGM

02SEP1

53082

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules

regulatory action because it raises novel
legal and policy issues.
B. Population at Risk
The proposed rule would apply to all
underground coal mines in the United
States. In 2014, there were
approximately 300 active underground
coal mines using mobile machines on
the working section. These mines
employ approximately 39,870 miners
(excluding office workers).

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

C. Net Benefits
Under the Mine Act, MSHA is not
required to use estimated net benefits as
the basis for its decision. At a 0 percent
discount rate over 10 years, the
estimated annualized values for net
benefits of the proposed rule would be
$2.1 million. At a 3 percent discount
rate over 10 years, the estimated
annualized values for net benefits of the
proposed rule would be $0.3 million. At
a 7 percent discount rate over 10 years,
the estimated annualized values for net
benefits of the proposed rule would be
¥$2.0 million.
MSHA anticipates the proposed rule
would provide several benefits that
were not quantified due to a lack of
definitive information. For example, the
proposed rule would result in
additional savings to mine operators
who would be able to avoid production
delays typically associated with mine
accidents. Pinning, crushing, and
striking accidents can disrupt
production at a mine during the time it
takes to remove the injured miners,
investigate the cause of the accident,
and clean up the accident site. Such
delays can last for a shift or more.
Factors such as lost production,
damaged equipment, and other
miscellaneous expenses could result in
significant costs to mine operators;
however, MSHA has not quantified
these savings due to the imprecision of
the data.
The dollar estimate of benefits and
costs are explained further in the
Benefits (D) and Compliance Costs (E)
sections.
D. Benefits
The proposed rule would significantly
improve safety protections for
underground coal miners by reducing
their risk of being crushed, pinned, or
struck by mobile machines. MSHA
projects that the benefits of the
proposed rule would gradually increase
over time as the number of proximity
detection systems in operation increases
during the first 36 months after the
effective date of a final rule.
MSHA reviewed the Agency’s
investigation reports for all powered

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Sep 01, 2015

Jkt 235001

haulage and machinery accidents that
occurred from 1984 through 2014 (31
years) and determined that the use of
proximity detection systems could have
prevented 42 fatalities and 179 nonfatal
injuries involving pinning, crushing, or
striking accidents with coal hauling
machines and scoops (since these
miners were located in a proximity
detection system warning/stopping
zone). This count excludes fatalities and
injuries that would not have been
prevented by proximity detection
systems on mobile machines, such as
when a roof or rib fall pins a miner
against a mobile machine or a mobile
machine strikes and pushes another
machine into a miner.
To estimate the number of injuries
and fatalities that the proposed rule
would prevent, MSHA projected the
number of injuries and fatalities that
proximity detection systems installed
on mobile machines would prevent over
the next 10 years. This projection was
based on MSHA’s review of the
historical data involving injuries and
fatalities occurring from 1984 through
2014. Based on the review of the
historical data, MSHA projects that the
proposed rule’s requirements would
prevent approximately 70 injuries and
15 fatalities over the next 10 years.
To estimate the monetary values of
the reductions in deaths and nonfatal
injuries, MSHA uses an analysis of the
imputed values based on a Willingnessto-Pay approach. This approach relies
on the theory of compensating wage
differentials (i.e., the wage premiums
paid to workers to accept the risk
associated with various jobs) in the
labor market. A number of studies have
shown a correlation between higher job
risk and higher wages, suggesting that
employees demand monetary
compensation in return for incurring
greater risk. The benefit of preventing a
fatality is measured by what is
conventionally called the Value of a
Statistical Life (VSL), defined as the
additional cost that individuals would
be willing to bear for improvements in
safety (that is, reductions in risks) that,
in the aggregate, reduce the expected
number of fatalities by one. MSHA
emphasizes that the VSL is a statistical
concept for comparing risk reduction
and not the value of an individual’s life.
For the primary estimate, MSHA used a
VSL of $9.4 million (2014 dollars), 40
percent of the VSL for permanent
disabilities, and approximately 1
percent of the VSL for non-disabling
injuries. Detailed information about
how MSHA estimated the benefits are
available in the PREA supporting this
proposed rule. MSHA estimates the total
undiscounted benefit of the proposed

PO 00000

Frm 00064

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

rule over 10 years would be $182.6
million at a 0 percent discount rate,
$151.5 million at a 3 percent discount
rate, and $120.0 million at a 7 percent
discount rate. The total annualized
benefits over 10 years would be
approximately $18.3 million at a 0
percent discount rate, $17.2 million at a
3 percent discount rate, and $16.0
million at a 7 percent discount rate.
E. Compliance Costs
This section presents MSHA’s
estimates of the total costs to
underground coal mine operators to
comply with the proposed rule over a
10-year period. MSHA based the cost
estimates on the likely actions that the
Agency believes would be necessary to
comply with the proposed rule. MSHA
estimates that the total costs of the
proposed rule over a 10-year period
would be approximately $161 million at
a 0 percent discount rate, $149 million
at a 3 percent discount rate, and $135
million at a 7 percent discount rate. The
total cost annualized over 10 years
would be approximately $16.1 million
per year at a 0 percent discount rate,
$16.9 million per year at a 3 percent
discount rate, and $17.9 million per
year at a 7 percent discount rate.
As noted earlier, more detailed
information about how MSHA estimated
benefits and costs are available in the
Preliminary Regulatory Economic
Analysis (PREA) supporting this
proposed rule. The PREA is available on
MSHA’s Web site, at http://
www.msha.gov/REGSINF5.HTM.
IV. Feasibility
MSHA has concluded that the
requirements of the proposed rule
would be both technologically and
economically feasible, and that the 36month phase-in period would facilitate
implementation of the proposed rule.
A. Technological Feasibility
MSHA has concluded that the
proposal is technologically feasible.
Mine operators are capable of equipping
coal hauling machines and scoops with
proximity detection systems in
accordance with the proposed
compliance dates. Proximity detection
systems required under the proposal
already exist and are commercially
available for use in underground coal
mines.
MSHA has experience with
manufacturers of proximity detection
systems and mine operators who have
installed proximity detection systems
on coal hauling machines and scoops.
MSHA has approved two proximity
detection systems for permissibility
under existing regulations in 30 CFR

E:\FR\FM\02SEP1.SGM

02SEP1

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules
part 18, which can be installed on coal
hauling machines and scoops. As of
January 2015, at least 79 coal hauling
machines and 50 scoops equipped with
a proximity detection system are
operating in underground coal mines in
the United States. MSHA observed these
systems provide warnings and stop coal
hauling machines and scoops
appropriately. MSHA also observed
these coal hauling machines function
properly while interacting with a
continuous mining machine equipped
with a proximity detection system.
There were approximately eight people
equipped with miner-wearable
components during this demonstration.
MSHA also observed mobile
machines, including coal hauling
machines, scoops, and continuous
mining machines, equipped with
proximity detection systems operate in
South Africa. MSHA observed
proximity detection systems from
several manufacturers provide warnings
and slow and stop machines at
appropriate distances.
Based on MSHA’s experience with
approving four proximity detection
systems under 30 CFR part 18 as
permissible for use on continuous
mining machines and its observations in
South Africa, the Agency anticipates
that other manufacturers may develop
proximity detection systems for use
with coal hauling machines and scoops
in the United States.
Continuous haulage systems consist
of multiple interconnected mobile and
bridge units. Although MSHA has no
experience with continuous haulage
systems equipped with a proximity
detection system, MSHA anticipates
that existing proximity detection
systems can be adapted to continuous
haulage systems to provide complete
proximity detection coverage on each of
the interconnected units. By connecting
the proximity detection system with the
electrical circuitry of the continuous
haulage system, the proximity detection
system can de-energize the entire
continuous haulage system or stop all
tram motors. As stated previously
MSHA anticipates challenges with
adapting proximity detection systems to
continuous haulage systems due to the
length of these machines and the unique
interaction with continuous mining
machines.
MSHA solicits comments on the
technological feasibility of equipping
coal hauling machines and scoops with
proximity detection systems. MSHA
specifically solicits comments on
equipping continuous haulage systems
with proximity detection systems.
Comments should be specific and
include alternatives, rationale for

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Sep 01, 2015

Jkt 235001

suggested alternatives, safety benefits to
miners, and supporting data.
B. Economic Feasibility
MSHA has traditionally used a
revenue screening test—whether the
yearly compliance costs of a regulation
are less than one percent of revenues, or
are negative (e.g., provide net cost
savings)—to establish presumptively
that compliance with the regulation is
economically feasible for the mining
industry. Based on this test, MSHA has
concluded that the requirements of the
proposed rule are economically feasible.
The annualized cost of the proposed
rule to underground coal mine
operators, discounted at 7 percent over
10 years, is $17.9 million. This
represents approximately 0.08 percent
of total annual revenue of $21.2 billion
($17.9 million cost/$21.2 billion
revenue) for all underground coal
mines. Since the estimated compliance
cost is below one percent of estimated
annual revenue, MSHA concludes no
further analysis is required. Compliance
with the provisions of the proposed rule
would be economically feasible for the
coal industry.
V. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act (SBREFA), MSHA has
analyzed the compliance cost impact of
the proposed rule on small entities.
Based on that analysis, MSHA certifies
that the proposed rule would not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities in
terms of compliance costs. Therefore,
the Agency is not required to develop an
initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
The factual basis for this certification
is presented in full in Chapter VII of the
PREA and in summary form below.
A. Definition of a Small Mine
Under the RFA, in analyzing the
impact of a rule on small entities,
MSHA must use the Small Business
Administration’s (SBA’s) definition for a
small entity, or after consultation with
the SBA Office of Advocacy, establish
an alternative definition for the mining
industry by publishing that definition in
the Federal Register for notice and
comment. MSHA has not established an
alternative definition, and is required to
use SBA’s definition. The SBA defines
a small entity in the mining industry as
an establishment with 500 or fewer
employees.
MSHA has also examined the impact
of the proposed rule on mines with

PO 00000

Frm 00065

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

53083

fewer than 20 employees, which MSHA
and the mining community have
traditionally referred to as small mines.
These small mines differ from larger
mines not only in the number of
employees, but also in economies of
scale in material produced, in the type
and amount of production equipment,
and in supply inventory. Therefore,
their costs of complying with MSHA’s
rules and the impact of the Agency’s
rules on them will also tend to be
different.
This analysis complies with the
requirements of the RFA for an analysis
of the impact on small entities while
continuing MSHA’s traditional
definition of small mines.
B. Factual Basis for Certification
MSHA’s analysis of the economic
impact on small entities begins with a
screening analysis. The screening
compares the estimated costs of the
proposed rule for small entities to their
estimated revenues. When estimated
costs are less than one percent of
estimated revenues (for the size
categories considered), MSHA believes
it is generally appropriate to conclude
that no further analysis is required to
conclude that there is no significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. If estimated
costs are equal to or exceed one percent
of revenues, further analysis may be
warranted.
Revenue for underground coal mines
is derived from data on coal prices and
tonnage. The average open market U.S.
sales price of underground coal for 2013
was $60.98 per ton. This average price
of underground coal for 2013 is from the
Department of Energy (DOE), Energy
Information Administration (EIA),
Annual Coal Report 2013, January 2015,
p. 47. The actual 2014 price is not yet
available. Based on EIA reports in 2014
and 2015 showing little change in the
price for underground coal since 2013,
MSHA used the 2013 price of $60.98 per
ton.
Total underground coal production in
2014 was approximately 3.1 million
tons for mines with 1–19 employees.
Multiplying tons by the 2013 price per
ton, 2014 underground coal revenue
was $189 million for mines with 1–19
employees. Total underground coal
production in 2014 was approximately
240.1 million short tons for mines with
1–500 employees. Multiplying tons by
the 2013 price per ton, 2014
underground coal revenue was $14.6
billion for mines with 1–500 employees.
Total underground coal production in
2014 was approximately 348.4 million
tons. Multiplying tons by the 2013 price
per ton, total estimated revenue in 2014

E:\FR\FM\02SEP1.SGM

02SEP1

53084

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules

for underground coal production was
$21.2 billion.
The estimated yearly cost of the
proposed rule for underground coal
mines with 1–19 employees is
approximately $1.7 million which
represents approximately 0.90 percent
of annual revenues. MSHA estimates
that some mines might experience costs
somewhat higher than the average per
mine in their size category while others
might experience lower costs.
When applying SBA’s definition of a
small mine, the estimated yearly cost of
the proposed rule for underground coal
mines with 1–500 employees is
approximately $13.1 million which
represents approximately 0.10 percent
of annual revenue.
Based on this analysis, MSHA has
determined that no further analysis is
required to conclude that the proposed
rule would not have a significant
economic impact in terms of
compliance costs on a substantial
number of small underground coal
mines, as defined by SBA. MSHA has
provided, in the PREA accompanying
this proposed rule, a complete analysis
of the cost impact on this category of
mines.
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

A. Summary
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
provides for the Federal government’s
collection, use, and dissemination of
information. The goals of the PRA
include minimizing paperwork and
reporting burdens and ensuring the
maximum possible utility from the
information that is collected (44 U.S.C.
3501). The proposed information
collections contained in this proposed
rule are submitted for review under the
PRA to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), OMB Control Number
1219–0148. The proposal contains
minor adjustments to burden hours for
an existing paperwork package with
OMB Control Number 1219–0066.
MSHA does not include estimated
burden hours and the cost of revising
training plans on an annual basis
because this burden would be
accounted for under the OMB Control
Number 1219–0009. Underground coal
mine operators routinely revise their
training plan at least yearly in
accordance with 30 CFR part 48.
In the first three years the proposed
rule is in effect, the mining community
would incur 3,094 annual burden hours
with related annual burden costs of
approximately $313,354, and other
annual administrative costs (office
supplies and postage) related to the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Sep 01, 2015

Jkt 235001

information collection package of
approximately $114,565.
B. Procedural Details
The information collection package
for this proposed rule has been
submitted to OMB for review under 44
U.S.C. 3504, paragraph (h) of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), as amended. The methodology
for estimating burden hours and related
costs are in the Preliminary Regulatory
Economic Analysis (PREA) for the
proposed rule. The PREA can be
accessed electronically at http://
www.msha.gov/REGSINF5.HTM. For a
detailed summary of the burden hours
and related costs by provision, see the
information collection package
accompanying this proposed rule. A
copy of the information collection
package can be obtained from http://
www.msha.gov/regspwork.htm or http://
www.regulations.gov on the day
following publication of this document
in the Federal Register or from the
Department of Labor by electronic mail
request to Michel Smyth at
[email protected] (email) or (202)
693–4129 (voice) or Sheila McConnell at
[email protected] or (202)
693–9440 (voice).
MSHA requests comments to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the Agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the
Agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology,
e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses.
Comments on the information
collection requirements should be sent
to both OMB and MSHA. Addresses for
both offices can be found in the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble. The
Department of Labor notes that, under
the PRA, affected parties do not have to
comply with the information collection
requirements in this proposed rule until
they have been approved by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB). The
Department of Labor will inform the
public of OMB’s approval when it is

PO 00000

Frm 00066

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

obtained at the final rule stage. MSHA
displays the OMB control numbers for
the information collection requirements
in its regulations in 30 CFR part 3.
The proposed total information
collection burden is summarized as
follows:
Title of Collection: Permissible
Equipment Testing.
• OMB Control Numbers: 1219–0066.
• Affected Public: Private SectorBusinesses or other for-profits.
• Estimated Number of Respondents:
300 respondents.
• Estimated Number of Responses:
222 responses.
• Estimated Annual Burden Hours:
792 hours.
• Estimated Annual Cost Related to
Burden Hours: $80,356.
• Estimated Other Annual Costs
Related to the Information Collection
Package: $114,565.
Title of Collection: Proximity
Detection Systems for Mining Machines
in Underground Coal Mines.
• OMB Control Numbers: 1219–0148.
• Affected Public: Private SectorBusinesses or other for-profits.
• Estimated Number of Respondents:
300 respondents.
• Estimated Number of Responses:
811,497 responses.
• Estimated Annual Burden Hours:
2,302 hours.
• Estimated Annual Cost Related to
Burden Hours: $232,998.
• Estimated Other Annual Costs
Related to the Information Collection
Package: $0.
VII. Other Regulatory Considerations
A. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995
MSHA has reviewed the proposed
rule under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et
seq.). MSHA has determined that this
proposed rule does not include any
federal mandate that may result in
increased expenditures by State, local,
or tribal governments; nor would it
increase private sector expenditures by
more than $100 million (adjusted for
inflation) in any one year or
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. Accordingly, the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
requires no further Agency action or
analysis. Since the proposed rule does
not cost over $100 million in any one
year, the proposed rule is not a major
rule under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995.
B. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
The proposed rule does not have
‘‘federalism implications’’ because it

E:\FR\FM\02SEP1.SGM

02SEP1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules
would not ‘‘have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.’’
Accordingly, under E.O. 13132, no
further Agency action or analysis is
required.
C. The Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act of
1999: Assessment of Federal
Regulations and Policies on Families
Section 654 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act of 1999 (5 U.S.C. 601 note) requires
agencies to assess the impact of Agency
action on family well-being. MSHA has
determined that the proposed rule
would have no effect on family stability
or safety, marital commitment, parental
rights and authority, or income or
poverty of families and children.
Accordingly, MSHA certifies that this
proposed rule would not impact family
well-being.
D. Executive Order 12630: Government
Actions and Interference With
Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights
The proposed rule does not
implement a policy with takings
implications. Accordingly, under E.O.
12630, no further Agency action or
analysis is required.

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

E. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice
Reform
The proposed rule was written to
provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct and was carefully
reviewed to eliminate drafting errors
and ambiguities, so as to minimize
litigation and undue burden on the
Federal court system. Accordingly, the
proposed rule would meet the
applicable standards provided in
section 3 of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice
Reform.
F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
The proposed rule would have no
adverse impact on children.
Accordingly, under E.O. 13045, no
further Agency action or analysis is
required.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This proposed rule does not have
‘‘tribal implications’’ because it would
not ‘‘have substantial direct effects on
one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Sep 01, 2015

Jkt 235001

government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes.’’
Accordingly, under E.O. 13175, no
further Agency action or analysis is
required.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
Executive Order 13211 requires
agencies to publish a statement of
energy effects when a rule has a
significant energy action that adversely
affects energy supply, distribution or
use. MSHA has reviewed this proposed
rule for its energy effects because the
proposed rule applies to the
underground mining sector. Because
this proposed rule would result in
annualized costs of approximately $17.9
million to the underground coal mining
industry, relative to annual revenues of
$21.2 billion in 2014, MSHA has
concluded that it is not a significant
energy action because it is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
Accordingly, under this analysis, no
further Agency action or analysis is
required.
I. Executive Order 13272: Proper
Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking
MSHA has thoroughly reviewed the
proposed rule to assess and take
appropriate account of its potential
impact on small businesses, small
governmental jurisdictions, and small
organizations. MSHA has determined
and certified that the proposed rule does
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities.

53085

U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and
Health Administration, ‘‘Program Policy
Manual, Vol. V—Coal Mines, Criteria—
Mantrips,’’ October 2003 (Release V–34),
pp. 126 and 127.
U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and
Health Administration, ‘‘Proximity
Protection System Specification.’’
October 4, 2004.
U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and
Health Administration, Request for
Information. ‘‘Proximity Detection
Systems for Underground Mines,’’
Federal Register, Vol. 75, pg. 2009,
February 1, 2010.
U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and
Health Administration. ‘‘Preliminary
Regulatory Economic Analysis for
Proximity Detection Systems for Mobile
Machines in Underground Mines,’’
Proposed Rule (RIN 1219–AB78), http://
www.msha.gov/prea.HTM, August 2011.
Viscusi, W. and J. Aldy. ‘‘The Value of a
Statistical Life: A Critical Review of
Market Estimates Throughout the
World,’’ Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,
27:5–76, 2003.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 75
Mine safety and health, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Underground coal mines.
Joseph A. Main,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety
and Health.

For the reasons set out in the
preamble and under the authority of the
Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of
1977, as amended, MSHA is proposing
to amend chapter I of title 30 of the
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 75—MANDATORY SAFETY
STANDARDS—UNDERGROUND COAL
MINES
1. The authority citation for part 75
continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811, 813(h), 957.

2. Add § 75.1733 to read as follows:

VIII. References

■

Dransite, Jerry, G. Clark, B. Warnock, D.
Wease. ‘‘Remotely Controlled Mining
Machinery Study,’’ MSHA Approval and
Certification Center, August 3, 1998.
Hintermann, Beat, Anna Alberini, and Anil
Markandya. ‘‘Estimating the Value of
Safety with Labour Market Data: Are the
Results Trustworthy?,’’ Applied
Economics, 42(9):1085–1100, 2010. First
published on July 18, 2008. URL: http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/00036840802260940.
Magat, W., W. Viscusi, and J. Huber. ‘‘A
Reference Lottery Metric for Valuing
Health’’, Management Science,
42(8):1118–1130m, 1996.
Sanders, M.S., and G.R. Kelly. ‘‘Visual
Attention Locations for Operating
Continuous Miners, Shuttle Cars, and
Scoops—Volume 1 (contract J0387213,
Canyon Research Group, Inc.)’’, USBM
OFR 29(1)–82, 1981. NTIS PB 82–
187964.

§ 75.1733 Proximity detection systems;
other mobile machines.

PO 00000

Frm 00067

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

(a) Machines covered. Operators must
equip coal hauling machines and scoops
on working sections, except longwall
working sections, with machinemounted components of a proximity
detection system in accordance with the
following dates. For proximity detection
systems with miner-wearable
components, the mine operator must
provide a miner-wearable component to
be worn by each miner on the working
sections, except longwall working
sections, by the following dates.
(1) Coal hauling machines and scoops
manufactured after [INSERT
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL
RULE] must meet the requirements in
this section no later than [INSERT

E:\FR\FM\02SEP1.SGM

02SEP1

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

53086

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules

DATE 8 MONTHS AFTER THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL
RULE]. These machines must meet the
requirements in this section when
placed in service with a proximity
detection system.
(2) Coal hauling machines or scoops
manufactured and equipped with a
proximity detection system on or before
[INSERT EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE
FINAL RULE] must:
(i) Meet the requirements in this
section no later than [INSERT DATE 8
MONTHS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THE FINAL RULE] if
modifications to the existing proximity
detection system can be made
underground; or
(ii) Meet the requirement in this
section no later than [INSERT DATE 36
MONTHS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THE FINAL RULE] if the
existing proximity detection system
cannot be modified underground or
needs to be replaced with a new
proximity detection system.
(3) Coal hauling machines and scoops
manufactured and not equipped with a
proximity detection system on or before
[INSERT EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE
FINAL RULE] must meet the
requirements in this section no later
than [INSERT DATE 36 MONTHS
AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE
FINAL RULE]. These machines must
meet the requirements in this section
when placed in service with a proximity
detection system.
(b) Requirements for proximity
detection systems. If a proximity
detection system includes minerwearable components, both the
machine-mounted components and
miner-wearable components constitute
the proximity detection system. The
system must:
(1) Cause a machine to stop before
contacting a miner except for a miner
who is in the on-board operator’s
compartment;
(2) Provide warning signals,
distinguishable from other signals, that
alert miners before the system causes a
machine to stop: An audible and visual
warning signal on any miner-wearable
component and a visual warning signal
on the machine;
(3) Provide a visual signal on the
machine that indicates the machinemounted components are functioning
properly;
(4) Prevent movement of the machine
if any machine-mounted component of
the system is not functioning properly.
However, a system with any machinemounted component that is not
functioning properly may allow
machine movement if an audible or
visual warning signal, distinguishable

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Sep 01, 2015

Jkt 235001

from other signals, is provided during
movement. Such movement is permitted
only for purposes of relocating the
machine from an unsafe location for
repair;
(5) Be installed to prevent interference
that adversely affects performance of
any electrical system; and
(6) Be installed and maintained in
proper operating condition by a person
trained in the installation and
maintenance of the system.
(c) Proximity detection system checks.
Operators must:
(1) Designate a person who must
perform a check of machine-mounted
components of the proximity detection
system to verify that components are
intact and the system is functioning
properly, and to take action to correct
defects:
(i) At the beginning of each shift when
the machine is to be used; or
(ii) Immediately prior to the time the
machine is to be operated if not in use
at the beginning of a shift; or
(iii) Within 1 hour of a shift change
if the shift change occurs without an
interruption in production.
(2) Check for proper operation of each
miner-wearable component at the
beginning of each shift that the
component is to be used. Defects must
be corrected before the component is
used.
(d) Certifications and records. The
operator must make and retain
certifications and records as follows:
(1) At the completion of the check of
machine-mounted components required
under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, a
certified person under § 75.100 must
certify by initials, date, and time that
the check was conducted. Defects found
as a result of the check in paragraph
(c)(1), including corrective actions and
dates of corrective actions, must be
recorded before the end of the shift;
(2) Make a record of the defects found
as a result of the check of minerwearable components under paragraph
(c)(2) of this section, including
corrective actions and dates of
corrective actions;
(3) Make a record of the persons
trained in the installation and
maintenance of proximity detection
systems required under paragraph (b)(6)
of this section;
(4) Maintain records in a secure book
or electronically in a secure computer
system not susceptible to alteration; and
(5) Retain records for at least one year
and make them available for inspection
by authorized representatives of the
Secretary and representatives of miners.
[FR Doc. 2015–21573 Filed 9–1–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–43–P

PO 00000

Frm 00068

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0256; FRL–9927–13–
Region 9]

Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Arizona;
Phased Discontinuation of Stage II
Vapor Recovery Program
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:

The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
state implementation plan (SIP) revision
from the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality related to the
removal of ‘‘Stage II’’ vapor recovery
equipment at gasoline dispensing
facilities in the Phoenix-Mesa area.
Specifically, the EPA is proposing to
approve a SIP revision that eliminates
the requirement to install and operate
such equipment at new gasoline
dispensing facilities, and that provides
for the phased removal of such
equipment at existing gasoline
dispensing facilities from October 2016
through September 2018. The EPA has
previously determined that onboard
refueling vapor recovery is in
widespread use nationally and waived
the stage II vapor recovery requirement.
The EPA is proposing to approve this
SIP revision because the resultant shortterm incremental increase in emissions
would not interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the national ambient air
quality standards or any other
requirement of the Clean Air Act and
because it would avoid longer-term
increases in emissions from the
continued operation of stage II vapor
recovery equipment at gasoline
dispensing facilities in the PhoenixMesa area.
DATES: Comments must be received by
October 2, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket No. EPA–R09–
OAR–2014–0256, by one of the
following methods:
1. Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: Jeffrey Buss at buss.jeffrey@
epa.gov.
3. Fax: Jeffrey Buss, Air Planning
Office (AIR–2), at fax number 415–947–
3579.
4. Mail: Jeffrey Buss, Air Planning
Office (AIR–2), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region IX, 75
Hawthorne, San Francisco, California
94105.
SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\02SEP1.SGM

02SEP1