Proximity Detection Systems for Mobile Machines in Underground Mines, 2285-2291 [2017-00105]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2017 / Proposed Rules
on November 30, 2016, (81 FR 58424) is
reopened. Comments must be received
on or before midnight Eastern Standard
Time on January 9, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments and
informational materials for the
rulemaking record, identified by RIN
1219–AB86 or Docket No. MSHA–2014–
0031, by one of the following methods:
• Federal E-Rulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-Mail: zzMSHA-comments@
dol.gov.
• Mail: MSHA, Office of Standards,
Regulations, and Variances, 201 12th
Street South, Suite 4E401, Arlington,
Virginia 22202–5452.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: 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 East,
Suite 4E401.
• Fax: 202–693–9441.
Instructions: All submissions must
include ‘‘RIN 1219–AB86’’ or ‘‘Docket
No. MSHA–2014–0031.’’ Do not include
personal information that you do not
want publicly disclosed; MSHA will
post all comments without change to
https://www.regulations.gov and https://
arlweb.msha.gov/currentcomments.asp,
including any personal information
provided.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov or https://
arlweb.msha.gov/currentcomments.asp.
To read background documents, go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Review the
docket in person at MSHA, Office of
Standards, Regulations, and Variances,
201 12th Street South, 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 in Suite 4E401.
E-Mail Notification: To subscribe to
receive an email notification when
MSHA publishes rules in the Federal
Register, go to https://www.msha.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sheila A. McConnell, Director, Office of
Standards, Regulations, and Variances,
MSHA, at mcconnell.sheila.a@dol.gov
(email), 202–693–9440 (voice); or 202–
693–9441 (facsimile). These are not tollfree numbers.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 8,
2016 (81 FR 36826), MSHA published a
request for information (RFI) on
Exposure of Underground Miners to
Diesel Exhaust. The RFI sought input
from the public that will help MSHA
evaluate the Agency’s existing standards
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Jan 06, 2017
Jkt 241001
and policy guidance on controlling
miners’ exposures to diesel exhaust to
evaluate the effectiveness of the
protection now in place to preserve
miners’ health.
On June 27, 2016, (81 FR 41486),
MSHA published a notice in the Federal
Register announcing four public
meetings on the RFI. Public meetings
were held on July 19, 21, and 26 and
August 4, 2016. The comment period
was scheduled to close on September 6,
2016; however, in response to requests
from the public, MSHA extended the
comment period until November 30,
2016 (81 FR 58424).
During the comment period, MSHA
received requests for MSHA and the
National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) to convene
a Diesel Exhaust Health Effects
Partnership (Partnership) with the
mining industry, diesel engine
manufacturers, academia and
representatives of organized labor to
gather information regarding the
complex questions contained in the RFI.
In response to these requests, MSHA
and NIOSH agreed to form a Partnership
that includes all relevant stakeholders
from the mining community to come
together to understand the health effects
from underground miners’ exposure to
diesel exhaust. The Partnership will
also provide stakeholders an
opportunity to consider best practices
and new technologies including
engineering controls that enhance
control of diesel exhaust exposures to
improve protections for miners.
The first meeting of the Diesel
Exhaust Health Effects Partnership was
held on December 8, 2016, in
Washington, Pennsylvania.
During the comment period and at the
Partnership meeting, MSHA received
requests from stakeholders to reopen the
rulemaking record for comment on the
RFI and allow the comment period to
remain open during the Partnership
proceedings. In response to these
requests, MSHA is reopening the record
for comment and extending the
comment period to January 9, 2018. The
reopening of the record for comment
will allow all interested parties an
additional opportunity to re-evaluate all
issues related to miners’ exposure to
diesel exhaust and to determine if
improvements can be made.
Joseph A. Main,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety
and Health.
[FR Doc. 2017–00104 Filed 1–6–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4520–43–P
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2285
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration
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; reopening the
comment period.
AGENCY:
The Mine Safety and Health
Administration (MSHA) is reopening
the rulemaking record and requesting
additional comments on the Agency’s
proposed rule on Proximity Detection
Systems for Mobile Machines in
Underground Mines which was
published in the Federal Register on
September 2, 2015. The proposed rule
would 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.
DATES: The comment period for the
proposed rule published September 2,
2015 (80 FR 53070) is reopened.
Comments must be received by
midnight Daylight Saving Time on
February 8, 2017.
ADDRESSES: 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:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-Mail: zzMSHA-comments@
dol.gov.
• Mail: MSHA, Office of Standards,
Regulations, and Variances, 201 12th
Street South, Suite 4E401, Arlington,
Virginia 22202–5452.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: 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 East,
Suite 4E401.
• Fax: 202–693–9441.
Instructions: All submissions must
include RIN 1219–AB78 or Docket No.
MSHA–2014–0019. Do not include
personal information that you do not
want publicly disclosed; MSHA will
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\09JAP1.SGM
09JAP1
2286
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2017 / Proposed Rules
post all comments without change,
including any personal information
provided.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov or https://
www.msha.gov/currentcomments.asp.
To read background documents, go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Review the
docket in person at MSHA, Office of
Standards, Regulations, and Variances,
201 12th Street South, 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 East,
Suite 4E401.
Email notification: To subscribe to
receive email notification when the
Agency publishes rulemaking
documents in the Federal Register, go to
https://www.msha.gov/subscriptions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sheila McConnell, Director, Office of
Standards, Regulations, and Variances,
MSHA, at mcconnell.sheila.a@dol.gov
(email), 202–693–9440 (voice), or 202–
693–9441 (facsimile).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
I. Introduction
On September 2, 2015, MSHA
published a proposed rule, Proximity
Detection Systems for Mobile Machines
in Underground mines (80 FR 53070).
MSHA is reopening the rulemaking
record and requesting comments on
issues that were raised by commenters
during the comment period and on
issues that developed after the record
closed.
MSHA also observed the operation of
proximity detection systems on both
continuous mining machines and
mobile machines (shuttle cars, ram cars
and scoops) on working sections in the
United States and South Africa after the
record closed. There are 106 mobile
machines operating on working sections
equipped with proximity detection
systems in the United States. MSHA
visited six mines that operated 79 of
these machines. These mines varied by
physical, geological, and environmental
conditions. MSHA is also including in
the rulemaking record MSHA’s field-trip
report on the use of proximity detection
in South Africa’s underground coal
mines and materials presented at the
National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) Proximity
Detection Partnership Meeting held on
June 22, 2016.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Jan 06, 2017
Jkt 241001
II. Request for Comments
1. 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. MSHA requested
comments on the types of machine
movement the proximity detection
system should stop. Commenters did
not support the total de-energization of
all functions of the equipment. One
commenter noted that a ‘‘stop all
machine movement’’ requirement
cannot be applied universally to all
mobile equipment covered by this
proposed rule. The commenter noted
that mine operators need the flexibility
to configure proximity detection
systems and machine responses based
on the individual applications needed
underground. In support of this
comment, the commenter stated that
machines that interact with other
equipment, machines that require a
ground-standing operator to be in
contact with the machine, and machines
that lack specific capabilities for motion
control may need allowances outside of
prescriptive requirements. As an
example, the commenter stated that
shuttle cars and ram cars do not require
a miner to stand on the ground nearby
to perform required tasks; however,
scoops require a miner to touch or be
near the machine to do certain work.
One commenter also noted that
proximity detection systems present
significant problems for performing
trouble-shooting and maintenance
activities. The commenter provided an
example of a mechanic trying to identify
a leaking hydraulic hose; the mechanic
must remove the miner-wearable
component for the machine to be started
because the mechanic has to be inside
a red zone to diagnose the source of the
leak.
The National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) also commented that requiring
all machine movement to stop would
potentially limit the development and
application of advanced technology for
selective shutdown features. NIOSH
stated that currently available systems
are not capable of providing the level of
protection required in the industry
while maintaining the operator’s
freedom to efficiently perform the job.
NIOSH further stated that to be
acceptable to the miners and to avoid
false alarms, a proximity detection
system must provide the necessary
protection while still allowing normal
operation of the machine.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
MSHA observed mobile machines
with proximity detection systems
operating during coal production on
working sections. These proximity
detection systems functioned as
designed to prevent pinning, crushing,
and striking accidents. Four of the six
mines that MSHA visited in the United
States, after the record closed, had
proximity detection systems on mobile
machines and continuous mining
machines on the working section except
for full-face mining machines. The
mobile machines included shuttle cars,
ram cars, and scoops. These mine
operators provided all miners on these
working sections with miner-wearable
components.
MSHA solicits additional comments
on whether currently available
proximity detection systems are capable
of preventing coal hauling machines
and scoops from pinning, crushing, and
striking miners while maintaining the
machine operator’s freedom to
efficiently perform the job.
Under proposed § 75.1733(b)(1),
MSHA would consider stopping a coal
hauling machine or scoop to consist of
causing it to cease tramming or
articulating any part of a machine that
could cause the machine to contact a
miner. Tramming means to move the
machine in a forward or reverse
direction. Articulating includes an act of
moving or pivoting at a joint, such as
when a mobile machine may pivot
towards a rib such that the movement
could result in pinning, striking, or
crushing a miner. Under the proposal,
the machine would remain stopped
while any miner is within a
programmed stop zone. Unexpected
tramming and articulation in the
direction of a miner may be hazardous.
However, MSHA is considering whether
it is necessary to stop the movement of
all parts of the machine, such as
auxiliary movements, as long as the
tramming and articulating machine
motion that can pin, crush, or strike a
miner is stopped. In MSHA’s
experience, striking, pinning, or
crushing hazards are not caused by
auxiliary functions such as operation of
a pump motor or diesel engine, ram
extension, winch movement, vertical
bucket movement, or battery lift.
MSHA is also aware of proximity
detection system features that only
allow authorized miners to perform
maintenance. For example, an
authorized miner may swipe an
identification card over a card reader
mounted on the machine or have a
separate miner-wearable component
that is programmed to allow a miner to
perform maintenance. The proximity
detection system records each time
E:\FR\FM\09JAP1.SGM
09JAP1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2017 / Proposed Rules
maintenance is performed. Miners
authorized to perform maintenance on
machines equipped with proximity
detection systems would continue to
observe standard safety procedures,
such as removing stored energy and
blocking the machine to prevent motion,
while maintaining and repairing the
machine.
MSHA is considering a revision to
proposed § 75.1733(b)(1) that would
require a proximity detection system to
stop a machine from tramming or
articulating before contacting a miner
except for a miner who (i) is in the onboard operator’s compartment, or (ii)
performing maintenance with the
proximity detection system in
maintenance mode.
MSHA observed a miner and a scoop
operator perform maintenance by
changing the battery on a scoop
equipped with a proximity detection
system. The miner stayed near the
scoop, directed the scoop operator’s
movement of the machine, and
maintained a safe position outside of the
proximity detection system’s warning
zone. MSHA also observed a ram car
equipped with a proximity detection
system that was installed and
programmed to modify its warning and
shutdown zone dimensions to allow
miners to safely approach the machine
to perform maintenance and repairs
without causing it to shut down. The
warning and shutdown zones extended
around the entire machine perimeter
during normal operation; however,
activating the parking brake reduced
these zones to encompass only the
pinch point areas around the
articulation joint.
MSHA solicits comments on the types
of machine movement a proximity
detection system should allow for
miners to perform necessary
maintenance without exposing them to
pinning, crushing, or striking hazards.
MSHA also solicits comments on
miners’ and mine operators’ experiences
with proximity detection systems that
allow a miner to conduct maintenance
on a machine without activating the
stop movement function.
Several commenters also noted that
sudden stopping of equipment presents
hazards for on-board machine operators.
A commenter noted that sudden stops
and equipment shut downs, like any
other unexpected operations, could put
the operator of the machine at risk of
injury or death based on the size and
speed of the machine, and other related
factors. One commenter stated concerns
that the requirement to stop the
machine before contacting a miner
could create a hazard for machine
operators, especially diesel-powered
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Jan 06, 2017
Jkt 241001
machine operators since their ground
speed is typically faster than electricpowered machines. However, another
commenter stated that MSHA should
not require that machines slow down
before stopping because some machines,
such as battery-powered direct current
traction drives, do not have this
capability; in some cases, it is more
important to stop the machine as fast as
possible to prevent contact with miners.
NIOSH commented that field tests of
proximity detection systems on
continuous mining machines and input
from stakeholders found that detection
range, environmental effects/limitations,
detection accuracy, and system
repeatability are considered critical
parameters. MSHA observed mobile
machines operating in mines in the
United States with properly functioning
proximity detection systems of various
manufacturers with appropriate zone
dimensions. These mobile machines
worked in a range of seam heights, in
dry and wet conditions, on varying
grades, with and without wire mesh,
with various mine ventilation controls.
In MSHA’s experience, mine operators
work with machine manufacturers and
proximity detection system
manufacturers to determine the
appropriate warning and shutdown
zones for the specific mining conditions
and practices that the machine
encounters. MSHA is aware that
proximity detection system
manufacturers provide site-specific
testing during commissioning of
proximity detection systems. MSHA
also observed proximity detection
system testing used to confirm
appropriate zone dimensions for the
equipment and the mining conditions at
the time of commissioning. MSHA
solicits additional comments on
appropriate warning and stopping zones
for each type of machine movement and
various mining conditions including
any differences in cost for differing
conditions or machines.
Current NIOSH research is identifying
critical parameters that impact the
performance of proximity detection
systems on mobile machines, such as
stopping distances and deceleration
rates. MSHA is aware that NIOSH
research on proximity detection systems
for underground mobile equipment is
scheduled to conclude in September,
2018. Several commenters expressed
concern that the Agency will require
proximity detection systems to be
installed on coal haulage machines and
scoops before the findings from NIOSH
research on proximity detection systems
on underground mobile machines are
released. MSHA is also aware that some
mine operators have installed and are
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2287
operating proximity detection systems
on mobile machines. MSHA observed
variations in the installation,
maintenance and performance of these
systems. MSHA anticipates that a final
rule would provide minimum standards
for installation, performance,
maintenance, and recordkeeping to
assure that miners are adequately
protected. MSHA observed several
dynamic tests of mobile machines
equipped with proximity detection
systems in which the machine
decelerated to a full stop without injury
to the on-board operator. MSHA also
observed warning and shutdown zone
incursions on mobile machines
equipped with proximity detection
systems that are being used on working
sections during normal mine production
operations. These proximity detection
systems appropriately slowed and/or
stopped these mobile machines without
injuring the on-board machine operator.
MSHA is not aware of any on-board
operator injuries resulting from a
proximity detection system decelerating
and/or stopping a mobile machine.
MSHA will continue to work with
original equipment manufacturers,
proximity detection system
manufacturers, NIOSH, States, and mine
operators to consider the benefits and
timing of requiring proximity detection
systems on mobile machines in
underground coal mines.
MSHA solicited and received several
comments on how the use of proximity
detection systems and the overlap of
proximity detection system protection
zones on multiple types of machines
operating on the same working section
might affect miners’ work positions.
One commenter stated that testing,
which was conducted in a controlled
environment, demonstrated that it was
impossible to provide full coverage on
the rear section of the coal hauler
without creating a shutdown zone in the
locations where the continuous mining
machine operator was required to stand.
A modification to the system allowed
the shutdown zone to shrink as the coal
hauler backed into the loading position.
Due to the shape of the zone, however,
the modification removed protective
coverage of the rear corners of the coal
hauler.
MSHA observed continuous mining
machines and mobile machines
equipped with proximity detection
systems successfully interact during
production on working sections where
all of the miners had miner-wearable
components. MSHA solicits additional
information regarding how coal hauling
machines using proximity detection
systems work with continuous mining
machines equipped with proximity
E:\FR\FM\09JAP1.SGM
09JAP1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
2288
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2017 / Proposed Rules
detection systems while allowing
continuous mining machine operators to
remain in a safe location. MSHA is
interested in additional information
describing the installation and
programming of proximity detection
systems and examples of related work
practices established to assure that the
continuous mining machine operator
remains outside of the coal hauling
machine warning and shutdown zones.
Another commenter observed, during
tests of proximity detection systems on
continuous mining machines and
battery haulers, instances in which
miners (primarily continuous mining
machine operators) could not properly
perform necessary tasks without getting
closer to the continuous mining
machine than the proximity detection
system allowed. The commenter noted
that without the capability to
temporarily bypass proximity detection,
these personnel would either be forced
to operate equipment without a clear
line of sight or they would need to stand
in conditions that pose different
hazards, such as roof or rib hazards, or
in locations that are not permitted under
other regulations. The commenter
recommended that the proximity
detection system regulation for mobile
equipment allow for personnel to
temporarily bypass proximity detection
when such conditions are encountered.
MSHA may consider such a feature
and seeks comment on the availability,
use, and appropriateness of a temporary
bypass feature. MSHA solicits
information regarding how this feature
could work with existing proximity
detection systems and specific benefits
or hazards that could result.
One commenter noted that coal
haulers and scoops would encounter
sensors (miner-wearable components)
much more frequently during operation
than would continuous mining
machines. Thus, there is an increased
potential for nuisance tripping caused
by inadvertent exposure into the
detection zones of coal haulers, scoops,
and other equipment. The commenter
further noted the operation of
equipment during the mining process
requires multiple machines to operate,
often in close proximity and can result
in cross zone interference and nuisance
tripping. As an example, the commenter
noted a mine had to install additional
equipment to help alleviate the cross
zone interference issue. MSHA is aware
that proximity detection system
manufacturers must consider the
interaction of machines with on-board
operators to prevent unnecessary shut
downs. MSHA observed a loading
machine on which proximity detection
equipment was installed to provide a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Jan 06, 2017
Jkt 241001
silent zone for the on-board loading
machine operator. This silent zone
allowed the shuttle car to approach the
loading machine without the loading
machine operator causing the shuttle car
to stop. MSHA is also aware that
proximity detection system
manufacturers have addressed this
situation through programming minerwearable components with specific
permissions.
In addition, MSHA received a
comment from a machine manufacturer
stating that its field testing experience
with coal customers within the United
States demonstrates measurable section
production tonnage drops, within five to
ten percent of normal production levels,
when proximity detection is active on
haulage equipment.
MSHA is aware of mine operators that
installed proximity detection systems
on all mobile machines on the working
section and experienced production
decreases. Two of these mine operators
reported that production later returned
to pre-installation levels. MSHA
observed that miners with experience
working with mobile machines
equipped with proximity detection
systems are aware of the warning and
shutdown zone locations and position
themselves to minimize machine
shutdowns. MSHA did observe a
proximity detection system provide
both a warning and then shut down the
machine while the miner-wearable
component was physically located
outside the established warning and
shutdown zones. This mine operator
reported working with the proximity
detection system manufacturer to
resolve this type of occurrence. MSHA
is aware of proximity detection system
manufacturers that have mitigated
nuisance alarms and other issues
through engineering solutions. MSHA is
also aware that proximity detection
system manufacturers continue to
improve their technology and develop
solutions to minimize unwarranted
warnings and shutdowns.
MSHA solicits definitive data,
including cost and time estimates, on
delays in production caused by
proximity detection system alarms due
to cross zone interference and nuisance
tripping as well as data on the length of
time to return to pre-installation
production levels. MSHA also seeks
information on how to reduce or
eliminate production delays when
working with mobile machines
equipped with proximity detection
systems.
MSHA solicits comments on how
miners can place themselves in a safe
work position to avoid causing nuisance
alarms when one or more machines
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
with proximity detection systems are on
the working section. MSHA also solicits
comments on miners’ and mine
operators’ experiences when more than
one miner may be in close proximity to
one or more machines with proximity
detection systems.
MSHA solicited and received several
comments on proposed training for
miners who operate or work near
machines equipped with proximity
detection systems. NIOSH commented
that gaining an in-depth view of miners’
perspectives and how their job tasks and
environment could be or are affected
and then incorporating that information
into training may help to prevent
accidents and injuries that have been
labeled as human error in the
workplace. NIOSH further commented
that studies of continuous mining
machine operators have found that
unintended consequences, such as a
disruption in situational awareness,
risks, hazards, and decision-making
capabilities, can be avoided if human
factors considerations are integrated
into each stage of the technology design
and implementation process. In
addition, NIOSH stated that each piece
of equipment needs to have a uniquely
prescribed proximity system and the
methods and amounts of training for
each system should be designed
specifically for each system and
common platforms established where
possible.
One commenter stated that it has been
evaluating and testing proximity
detection system technologies since
2011. The commenter further stated that
inadequate situational awareness is one
of the primary factors in incidents
attributed to human error and that the
primary purpose of any proximity
detection system/collision avoidance
technology is to enhance situational
awareness.
Another commenter stated that
proximity detection system technology
has the potential to dangerously change
how miners interact with mobile
equipment in underground mines. The
commenter further stated that it has
witnessed multiple instances where
miners have taken higher risks because
of a false sense of security and that
implementation of proximity detection
systems on all mobile machines will
lead miners to unsafely rely on the
devices and act contrary to their
intuition and training. In addition, the
commenter stated that the first priority
[of the final rule] should be a safe
working position for a miner or machine
operator, and second a noncontact rule.
MSHA has observed miners relocate
themselves to safer locations because of
proximity detection system visible and
E:\FR\FM\09JAP1.SGM
09JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2017 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
audible warnings. These warnings
increased the miner’s situational
awareness regarding their location with
respect to hazardous areas around the
mobile machines.
MSHA is interested in receiving
additional information on miners’ and
mine operators’ experiences with the
effect that proximity detection systems
have on miners’ and machine operators’
situational awareness and any examples
where reliance on proximity detection
technology may cause the miner to
develop work practices that introduce
additional hazards.
MSHA observed representatives of
mine operators and proximity detection
system manufacturers provide
instruction and task training to miners
on the working section where proximity
detection systems have been installed
on mobile machines. Miners have
demonstrated their knowledge of the
installation, maintenance, and use of
proximity detection systems to MSHA
personnel. For example, MSHA
observed one mine operator instruct
miners to move into a crosscut adjacent
to a coal haulage travelway. This
increased their distance from the coal
haulage travelway, averted unwanted
proximity zone incursions, and
ultimately placed the workers in a safer
location. MSHA also observed a South
African mine operator utilize data
reports from the proximity detection
systems to reinforce safe work practices
specified in company policy. These data
reports logged the instances when
miner-wearable components entered the
established warning and shutdown
zones.
MSHA is also interested in miners’,
mine operators’ and proximity detection
system manufacturers’ experiences with
training that could be done to increase
miners’ and machine operators’
situational awareness around machines
with proximity detection systems.
2. Electromagnetic 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. Several commenters noted
that electromagnetic interference
generated from a variety of external
sources can adversely affect the
performance of proximity detection
systems. Several commenters stated that
electromagnetic interference prevents
proximity detection systems from
functioning as designed. Another
commenter stated that, because of
electromagnetic interference, the
proximity detection system failed to
locate the miner-wearable component
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Jan 06, 2017
Jkt 241001
with any level of accuracy or
consistency. The commenter further
stated that, as a result, it was nearly
impossible for the coal hauler to work
in close proximity to the continuous
miner or operator.
In addition, on April 6, 2016, MSHA
was made aware of concerns from mine
operators regarding electromagnetic
interferences with proximity detection
systems from respirable coal mine dust
sampling devices. On April 15 and May
2, 2016, MSHA notified underground
coal mine operators who have a
proximity detection system installed on
any equipment that they should identify
sources of any electromagnetic
interference that adversely affect the
performance of the proximity detection
system. The above-referenced notices
are included in the rulemaking record.
Proposed § 75.1733(b)(5) would
require a mine operator to install a
proximity detection system to prevent
interference that adversely affects
performance of any electrical system.
MSHA clarifies that proposed
§ 75.1733(b)(5) would require mine
operators to prevent electromagnetic
interference from affecting the operation
of the proximity detection system or any
other electrical system. MSHA intends
that the system would be installed,
maintained and operated in such a way
that no electrical systems would be
adversely affected due to interference.
This would require periodic postinstallation evaluation of all new
potential sources of electromagnetic
interference.
To clarify this intent, MSHA is
considering a revision to proposed
§ 75.1733(b)(5) that would require
proximity detection systems to be both
installed and operated in a manner that
prevents interferences that adversely
affect the performance of any electrical
system, including the proximity
detection system. The operation of other
electrical systems and equipment must
not interfere with the performance of
the proximity detection system, and the
proximity detection system must not
interfere with the performance of other
electrical systems.
MSHA has found that one type of
common interference can be identified
when electrical devices are placed
within several inches of the minerwearable component of the proximity
detection system. Electromagnetic
interference between these two systems
can be mitigated by maintaining a
minimum distance between a minerwearable component and electrical
devices. MSHA’s technical staff
estimated that each mine would require
an average of 20 hours for a mining
engineer to identify sources of
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2289
electromagnetic interference and the
minimum distance needed to mitigate
the interference. Mining engineers will
test the compatibility between electrical
devices and proximity detection system
components. Tests will be based on
equipment use and mining conditions.
MSHA anticipates that mining engineers
will conduct physical tests for
compatibility, review equipment user
manuals, and consult with the original
equipment manufacturers and the
proximity detection system
manufacturer.
Based on MSHA’s mine visits, the
Agency estimated that mine operators
are likely, on average, to introduce new
electrical equipment twice per year.
This would require a mining engineer
two hours to identify and mitigate
adverse interference from the new
electrical equipment.
Holding all other variables of the
preliminary regulatory economic
analysis constant, MSHA estimated that,
on average, it would cost each mine
operator $3,500 over ten years to
comply with proposed § 75.1733(b)(5).
MSHA seeks comments on the cost
drivers for compatibility testing and the
Agency’s cost estimate for proposed
§ 75.1733(b)(5).
MSHA is aware of best practices that
mine operators and proximity detection
system manufacturers have established
to minimize the effects of
electromagnetic interference. MSHA is
aware that proximity detection system
manufacturers have stated that
minimum separation distances need to
be maintained between miner-wearable
components and other electrical
equipment. During mine visits, miners
have demonstrated the ability to
maintain sufficient separation between
miner-wearable components and other
equipment to ensure proper proximity
detection system function. MSHA is
also aware of mine operators that have
added inline filters on variable
frequency drive shuttle cars to reduce
electromagnetic emission interference.
MSHA is aware of an electrical
equipment manufacturer that added
material designed to provide
electromagnetic shielding to its gas
detection equipment which reportedly
reduced interference with proximity
detection systems.
MSHA solicits comments on the
methods and practices mine operators
have used or could use to identify
sources of electromagnetic interference.
MSHA is also interested in receiving
information on the actions an operator
has taken or could take to prevent such
interference and how electromagnetic
interference can be mitigated in
instances where a miner needs to wear
E:\FR\FM\09JAP1.SGM
09JAP1
2290
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2017 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
multiple miner-wearable components
because different proximity detection
system models are operating on a
working section. Please also describe
procedures that were successful and
those that were not successful in
identifying interferences, as well as
solutions to prevent adverse
interference.
MSHA has observed that wire mesh
and metallic equipment can affect the
proximity detection systems’ warning
and stopping zones. MSHA has also
received reports of some pyrite deposits
within coal seams affecting the use of
the proximity detection system, but has
not observed this effect first-hand.
MSHA solicits information and data
from mine operators and proximity
detection system manufacturers on best
practices to minimize the effects of
these non-electrical interferences.
Since the record closed, MSHA
became aware of a proximity detection
system design feature on a minerwearable component that determines if
the magnetic field sensing coils have
been affected by electromagnetic
interference and can no longer detect
the magnetic field generated by the
machine-mounted components. This
feature provides a distinct audible and
visible alarm on the miner-wearable
component to alert miners when it is
not functioning properly due to
electromagnetic interference. MSHA is
considering requiring this design feature
for all miner-wearable components.
MSHA solicits comments on the cost
and availability of, and experience with,
any proximity detection system feature
or other technology that automatically
alerts the miner or machine operator
when the miner-wearable component or
proximity detection system is not
functioning properly due to
electromagnetic interference.
3. Proximity Detection System Checks
Proposed § 75.1733(c)(1) would
require that a mine operator 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. MSHA clarifies that
under proposed paragraph (c)(1), the
check would include verification that
the warning and shutdown zones are set
for the established proximity detection
field distances and to meet the
performance requirements under
proposed § 75.1733(b)(1) and (b)(2).
Under proposed § 75.1733(c)(1), the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Jan 06, 2017
Jkt 241001
person designated to perform the check
would verify that the machine-mounted
components are intact and correctly
mounted and the system is operating
properly to identify a miner-wearable
component and stop the machine. The
check assures that the warning and
shutdown zones around the perimeter of
the machine are set according to a mine
operator’s specifications. In MSHA’s
experience, proximity detection system
manufacturers have determined the type
of checks that should be conducted to
assure that their system is functioning
properly. Mine operators are expected to
follow the check procedures suggested
by the manufacturers. MSHA has
observed that a check of the warning
and shutdown zones can be made by a
miner walking around the machine with
a miner-wearable component to confirm
proper zone range. MSHA has also
observed checking the machine
shutdown function of the proximity
detection system. This check involves
placing a miner wearable component
inside the shutdown zone and then
attempting to initiate machine
movements such as tramming. If the
proximity detection system prevents
machine movement, the system is
functioning properly.
The check would also include an
examination of the machine-mounted
components to assure that the field
generators, antennas, cabling, and other
components are undamaged and
correctly mounted. The check would
also assure that appropriate audible and
visual warning signals are working as
required. MSHA solicits comments on
how the warning and shutdown zones
can be checked, or tested, without
putting machine operators at risk.
With the clarification in this notice,
MSHA estimates that the average time
required for a check, which includes a
verification that the warning and
shutdown zones are set to meet the
performance requirements under
proposed § 75.1733(b)(1) and (b)(2),
would increase from 20 seconds to 6
minutes. MSHA’s revised estimate of 6
minutes reflects the time needed to: (1)
Verify that the machine-mounted
components are intact and correctly
mounted and the system is operating
properly to identify a miner-wearable
component and stop the machine, and
(2) test and validate that the warning
and stopping zones meet performance
requirements. MSHA substituted the 6
minutes into the calculations of the
proposed rule, held all other variables
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
constant, and calculated that the average
10-year cost per mine increase would be
$182,000. Many other assumptions and
data values will be updated in a final
regulatory analysis. MSHA seeks
comments on the Agency’s revisions to
its proposed time estimate to comply
with § 75.1733(c)(1).
4. South Africa Field-Trip Report and
NIOSH Partnership Meeting
The rulemaking record includes
MSHA’s Field-Trip Report on Proximity
Detection Use in South Africa. On April
2 through April 13, 2016, MSHA and
NIOSH representatives visited South
Africa to investigate the progress of
proximity detection system technology
in South Africa. The group visited two
proximity detection system
manufacturing facilities and observed
proximity detection system performance
in three underground coal mines. In
addition, the group met with a
proximity detection system technology
developer with experience in proximity
detection system development in South
Africa and other countries. Among other
topics, they discussed the developer’s
experiences with proximity detection
system interference in South Africa.
MSHA and NIOSH also met with
representatives of South Africa’s
Department of Mineral Resources on the
implementation of proximity detection
systems on electric-powered, trackless
mobile machinery in South Africa’s
surface and underground mines.
MSHA’s report and presentation
materials from the South Africa trip are
included in the rulemaking record and
available for comment.
MSHA has also included in the
rulemaking record materials from the
NIOSH Proximity Detection Partnership
Meeting. On June 22, 2016, NIOSH held
a partnership meeting that included
representatives from MSHA, industry,
labor, and proximity detection system
manufacturers. Materials presented
during the partnership meeting are
included in the rulemaking record and
available for comment.
III. Compliance Cost Revision
MSHA initially estimated that the
proposed rule would cost mine
operators, over ten years, approximately
$536,000 per mine. MSHA has revised
estimates for two provisions to reflect
the Agency’s clarification on the
proposed requirements. Table 1
summarizes the changes to estimated
cost for these two provisions.
E:\FR\FM\09JAP1.SGM
09JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2017 / Proposed Rules
2291
TABLE 1—AVERAGE 10-YEAR TOTAL COST PER MINE
Average
10-year
per mine cost
Total 10-Year Cost as Proposed on 09/02/2015 .....................................................................................................
Changes:
Proximity Detection System Checks ................................................................................................................
Electromagnetic Interference Evaluation ..........................................................................................................
$536,000
Total Change .............................................................................................................................................
185,500
Total Revised Cost ..................................................................................................................................................
Percent increase in average cost per mine .............................................................................................................
The rulemaking record and comment
period for the proposed rule is reopened
until February 8, 2017. MSHA solicits
comments on all aspects of the proposed
rule. The Agency requests that
comments be specific as possible and
include any technological and economic
feasibility data.
Joseph A. Main,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety
and Health.
[FR Doc. 2017–00105 Filed 1–6–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4520–43–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 100
I. Table of Abbreviations
[Docket Number USCG–2016–0940]
RIN 1625–AA08
Special Local Regulation; Manatee
River; Bradenton, FL
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard proposes to
establish a special local regulation for
certain waters of the Manatee River
during the Bradenton Area River
Regatta. This action is necessary to
protect the safety of race participants,
participant vessels, spectators, and the
general public on these navigable waters
of the United States during the event.
The special local regulation would
restrict vessel traffic in the waters of the
Manatee River in the vicinity of
Bradenton, Florida. It would establish
the following three areas: Two spectator
areas, where all vessels must be
anchored or operate at No Wake Speed;
and an enforcement area where
designated representatives may control
vessel traffic as determined by the
prevailing conditions.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Jan 06, 2017
Jkt 241001
Comments and related material
must be received by the Coast Guard on
or before February 8, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2016–0940 using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public
Participation and Request for
Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
further instructions on submitting
comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions about this proposed
rulemaking, call or email Boatswain’s
Mate First Class Tyrone J. Stafford,
Sector St. Petersburg Prevention
Department, Coast Guard; telephone
813–228–2191, email Tyrone.J.Stafford@
uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Pub. L. Public Law
§ Section
U.S.C. United States Code
II. Background, Purpose, and Legal
Basis
The Coast Guard proposes to establish
a special local regulation on the waters
of the Manatee River, Bradenton,
Florida during the Bradenton Area River
Regatta. This event is a high speed boat
race with approximately 12 Formula 2
Class boats, traveling at speeds in excess
of 100 miles per hour. There will also
be approximately 14, 1000 cc
Hydrocross jet skis participating in
scheduled races during this event.
Additionally, there will be a jet ski and
water ski exhibition located within the
regulated area. It is anticipated that 250
spectator vessels will be present along
the race course. The race is scheduled
to take place annually from
approximately 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. during
the first Saturday of February.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
182,000
3,500
$721,500
35%
This proposed rulemaking is
necessary to provide for the safety of
race participants, participant vessels,
spectators, and the general public on
these navigable waters of the United
States during the Bradenton Area River
Regatta. The Coast Guard proposes this
rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1233.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
This proposed rulemaking would
encompass certain waters of the
Manatee River in Bradenton, Florida.
The special local regulation would be
enforced from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. normally
occurring during the first Saturday of
February. The special local regulation
would establish the following three
areas: (1) Two spectator areas, where all
vessels must be anchored or operate at
No Wake Speed; and (2) an enforcement
area that encompasses all race courses
and demonstrations, where designated
representatives may control vessel
traffic as determined by the prevailing
conditions.
Persons and vessels may request
authorization to enter, transit through,
anchor in, or remain within the
regulated area by contacting the Captain
of the Port St. Petersburg by telephone
at 727–824–7506, or a designated
representative via VHF radio on channel
16. If authorization to enter, transit
through, anchor in, or remain within the
regulated area is granted by the Captain
of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated
representative, all persons and vessels
receiving such authorization must
comply with the instructions of the
Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a
designated representative. The Coast
Guard will provide notice of the special
local regulation by Local Notice to
Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners,
and/or on-scene designated
representatives.
IV. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after
considering numerous statutes and
Executive Orders related to rulemaking.
E:\FR\FM\09JAP1.SGM
09JAP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 5 (Monday, January 9, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2285-2291]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00105]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration
30 CFR Part 75
[Docket No. MSHA-2014-0019]
RIN 1219-AB78
Proximity Detection Systems for Mobile Machines in Underground
Mines
AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening the comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is reopening
the rulemaking record and requesting additional comments on the
Agency's proposed rule on Proximity Detection Systems for Mobile
Machines in Underground Mines which was published in the Federal
Register on September 2, 2015. The proposed rule would 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.
DATES: The comment period for the proposed rule published September 2,
2015 (80 FR 53070) is reopened. Comments must be received by midnight
Daylight Saving Time on February 8, 2017.
ADDRESSES: 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: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
E-Mail: zzMSHA-comments@dol.gov.
Mail: MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and
Variances, 201 12th Street South, Suite 4E401, Arlington, Virginia
22202-5452.
Hand Delivery or Courier: 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 East, Suite 4E401.
Fax: 202-693-9441.
Instructions: All submissions must include RIN 1219-AB78 or Docket
No. MSHA-2014-0019. Do not include personal information that you do not
want publicly disclosed; MSHA will
[[Page 2286]]
post all comments without change, including any personal information
provided.
Docket: For access to the docket to read comments received, go to
https://www.regulations.gov or https://www.msha.gov/currentcomments.asp.
To read background documents, go to https://www.regulations.gov. Review
the docket in person at MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and
Variances, 201 12th Street South, 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 East, Suite 4E401.
Email notification: To subscribe to receive email notification when
the Agency publishes rulemaking documents in the Federal Register, go
to https://www.msha.gov/subscriptions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sheila McConnell, Director, Office of
Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at
mcconnell.sheila.a@dol.gov (email), 202-693-9440 (voice), or 202-693-
9441 (facsimile).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
On September 2, 2015, MSHA published a proposed rule, Proximity
Detection Systems for Mobile Machines in Underground mines (80 FR
53070). MSHA is reopening the rulemaking record and requesting comments
on issues that were raised by commenters during the comment period and
on issues that developed after the record closed.
MSHA also observed the operation of proximity detection systems on
both continuous mining machines and mobile machines (shuttle cars, ram
cars and scoops) on working sections in the United States and South
Africa after the record closed. There are 106 mobile machines operating
on working sections equipped with proximity detection systems in the
United States. MSHA visited six mines that operated 79 of these
machines. These mines varied by physical, geological, and environmental
conditions. MSHA is also including in the rulemaking record MSHA's
field-trip report on the use of proximity detection in South Africa's
underground coal mines and materials presented at the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Proximity
Detection Partnership Meeting held on June 22, 2016.
II. Request for Comments
1. Requirements for Proximity Detection Systems
Proposed Sec. 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. MSHA
requested comments on the types of machine movement the proximity
detection system should stop. Commenters did not support the total de-
energization of all functions of the equipment. One commenter noted
that a ``stop all machine movement'' requirement cannot be applied
universally to all mobile equipment covered by this proposed rule. The
commenter noted that mine operators need the flexibility to configure
proximity detection systems and machine responses based on the
individual applications needed underground. In support of this comment,
the commenter stated that machines that interact with other equipment,
machines that require a ground-standing operator to be in contact with
the machine, and machines that lack specific capabilities for motion
control may need allowances outside of prescriptive requirements. As an
example, the commenter stated that shuttle cars and ram cars do not
require a miner to stand on the ground nearby to perform required
tasks; however, scoops require a miner to touch or be near the machine
to do certain work.
One commenter also noted that proximity detection systems present
significant problems for performing trouble-shooting and maintenance
activities. The commenter provided an example of a mechanic trying to
identify a leaking hydraulic hose; the mechanic must remove the miner-
wearable component for the machine to be started because the mechanic
has to be inside a red zone to diagnose the source of the leak.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
also commented that requiring all machine movement to stop would
potentially limit the development and application of advanced
technology for selective shutdown features. NIOSH stated that currently
available systems are not capable of providing the level of protection
required in the industry while maintaining the operator's freedom to
efficiently perform the job. NIOSH further stated that to be acceptable
to the miners and to avoid false alarms, a proximity detection system
must provide the necessary protection while still allowing normal
operation of the machine.
MSHA observed mobile machines with proximity detection systems
operating during coal production on working sections. These proximity
detection systems functioned as designed to prevent pinning, crushing,
and striking accidents. Four of the six mines that MSHA visited in the
United States, after the record closed, had proximity detection systems
on mobile machines and continuous mining machines on the working
section except for full-face mining machines. The mobile machines
included shuttle cars, ram cars, and scoops. These mine operators
provided all miners on these working sections with miner-wearable
components.
MSHA solicits additional comments on whether currently available
proximity detection systems are capable of preventing coal hauling
machines and scoops from pinning, crushing, and striking miners while
maintaining the machine operator's freedom to efficiently perform the
job.
Under proposed Sec. 75.1733(b)(1), MSHA would consider stopping a
coal hauling machine or scoop to consist of causing it to cease
tramming or articulating any part of a machine that could cause the
machine to contact a miner. Tramming means to move the machine in a
forward or reverse direction. Articulating includes an act of moving or
pivoting at a joint, such as when a mobile machine may pivot towards a
rib such that the movement could result in pinning, striking, or
crushing a miner. Under the proposal, the machine would remain stopped
while any miner is within a programmed stop zone. Unexpected tramming
and articulation in the direction of a miner may be hazardous. However,
MSHA is considering whether it is necessary to stop the movement of all
parts of the machine, such as auxiliary movements, as long as the
tramming and articulating machine motion that can pin, crush, or strike
a miner is stopped. In MSHA's experience, striking, pinning, or
crushing hazards are not caused by auxiliary functions such as
operation of a pump motor or diesel engine, ram extension, winch
movement, vertical bucket movement, or battery lift.
MSHA is also aware of proximity detection system features that only
allow authorized miners to perform maintenance. For example, an
authorized miner may swipe an identification card over a card reader
mounted on the machine or have a separate miner-wearable component that
is programmed to allow a miner to perform maintenance. The proximity
detection system records each time
[[Page 2287]]
maintenance is performed. Miners authorized to perform maintenance on
machines equipped with proximity detection systems would continue to
observe standard safety procedures, such as removing stored energy and
blocking the machine to prevent motion, while maintaining and repairing
the machine.
MSHA is considering a revision to proposed Sec. 75.1733(b)(1) that
would require a proximity detection system to stop a machine from
tramming or articulating before contacting a miner except for a miner
who (i) is in the on-board operator's compartment, or (ii) performing
maintenance with the proximity detection system in maintenance mode.
MSHA observed a miner and a scoop operator perform maintenance by
changing the battery on a scoop equipped with a proximity detection
system. The miner stayed near the scoop, directed the scoop operator's
movement of the machine, and maintained a safe position outside of the
proximity detection system's warning zone. MSHA also observed a ram car
equipped with a proximity detection system that was installed and
programmed to modify its warning and shutdown zone dimensions to allow
miners to safely approach the machine to perform maintenance and
repairs without causing it to shut down. The warning and shutdown zones
extended around the entire machine perimeter during normal operation;
however, activating the parking brake reduced these zones to encompass
only the pinch point areas around the articulation joint.
MSHA solicits comments on the types of machine movement a proximity
detection system should allow for miners to perform necessary
maintenance without exposing them to pinning, crushing, or striking
hazards. MSHA also solicits comments on miners' and mine operators'
experiences with proximity detection systems that allow a miner to
conduct maintenance on a machine without activating the stop movement
function.
Several commenters also noted that sudden stopping of equipment
presents hazards for on-board machine operators. A commenter noted that
sudden stops and equipment shut downs, like any other unexpected
operations, could put the operator of the machine at risk of injury or
death based on the size and speed of the machine, and other related
factors. One commenter stated concerns that the requirement to stop the
machine before contacting a miner could create a hazard for machine
operators, especially diesel-powered machine operators since their
ground speed is typically faster than electric-powered machines.
However, another commenter stated that MSHA should not require that
machines slow down before stopping because some machines, such as
battery-powered direct current traction drives, do not have this
capability; in some cases, it is more important to stop the machine as
fast as possible to prevent contact with miners.
NIOSH commented that field tests of proximity detection systems on
continuous mining machines and input from stakeholders found that
detection range, environmental effects/limitations, detection accuracy,
and system repeatability are considered critical parameters. MSHA
observed mobile machines operating in mines in the United States with
properly functioning proximity detection systems of various
manufacturers with appropriate zone dimensions. These mobile machines
worked in a range of seam heights, in dry and wet conditions, on
varying grades, with and without wire mesh, with various mine
ventilation controls. In MSHA's experience, mine operators work with
machine manufacturers and proximity detection system manufacturers to
determine the appropriate warning and shutdown zones for the specific
mining conditions and practices that the machine encounters. MSHA is
aware that proximity detection system manufacturers provide site-
specific testing during commissioning of proximity detection systems.
MSHA also observed proximity detection system testing used to confirm
appropriate zone dimensions for the equipment and the mining conditions
at the time of commissioning. MSHA solicits additional comments on
appropriate warning and stopping zones for each type of machine
movement and various mining conditions including any differences in
cost for differing conditions or machines.
Current NIOSH research is identifying critical parameters that
impact the performance of proximity detection systems on mobile
machines, such as stopping distances and deceleration rates. MSHA is
aware that NIOSH research on proximity detection systems for
underground mobile equipment is scheduled to conclude in September,
2018. Several commenters expressed concern that the Agency will require
proximity detection systems to be installed on coal haulage machines
and scoops before the findings from NIOSH research on proximity
detection systems on underground mobile machines are released. MSHA is
also aware that some mine operators have installed and are operating
proximity detection systems on mobile machines. MSHA observed
variations in the installation, maintenance and performance of these
systems. MSHA anticipates that a final rule would provide minimum
standards for installation, performance, maintenance, and recordkeeping
to assure that miners are adequately protected. MSHA observed several
dynamic tests of mobile machines equipped with proximity detection
systems in which the machine decelerated to a full stop without injury
to the on-board operator. MSHA also observed warning and shutdown zone
incursions on mobile machines equipped with proximity detection systems
that are being used on working sections during normal mine production
operations. These proximity detection systems appropriately slowed and/
or stopped these mobile machines without injuring the on-board machine
operator. MSHA is not aware of any on-board operator injuries resulting
from a proximity detection system decelerating and/or stopping a mobile
machine.
MSHA will continue to work with original equipment manufacturers,
proximity detection system manufacturers, NIOSH, States, and mine
operators to consider the benefits and timing of requiring proximity
detection systems on mobile machines in underground coal mines.
MSHA solicited and received several comments on how the use of
proximity detection systems and the overlap of proximity detection
system protection zones on multiple types of machines operating on the
same working section might affect miners' work positions. One commenter
stated that testing, which was conducted in a controlled environment,
demonstrated that it was impossible to provide full coverage on the
rear section of the coal hauler without creating a shutdown zone in the
locations where the continuous mining machine operator was required to
stand. A modification to the system allowed the shutdown zone to shrink
as the coal hauler backed into the loading position. Due to the shape
of the zone, however, the modification removed protective coverage of
the rear corners of the coal hauler.
MSHA observed continuous mining machines and mobile machines
equipped with proximity detection systems successfully interact during
production on working sections where all of the miners had miner-
wearable components. MSHA solicits additional information regarding how
coal hauling machines using proximity detection systems work with
continuous mining machines equipped with proximity
[[Page 2288]]
detection systems while allowing continuous mining machine operators to
remain in a safe location. MSHA is interested in additional information
describing the installation and programming of proximity detection
systems and examples of related work practices established to assure
that the continuous mining machine operator remains outside of the coal
hauling machine warning and shutdown zones.
Another commenter observed, during tests of proximity detection
systems on continuous mining machines and battery haulers, instances in
which miners (primarily continuous mining machine operators) could not
properly perform necessary tasks without getting closer to the
continuous mining machine than the proximity detection system allowed.
The commenter noted that without the capability to temporarily bypass
proximity detection, these personnel would either be forced to operate
equipment without a clear line of sight or they would need to stand in
conditions that pose different hazards, such as roof or rib hazards, or
in locations that are not permitted under other regulations. The
commenter recommended that the proximity detection system regulation
for mobile equipment allow for personnel to temporarily bypass
proximity detection when such conditions are encountered.
MSHA may consider such a feature and seeks comment on the
availability, use, and appropriateness of a temporary bypass feature.
MSHA solicits information regarding how this feature could work with
existing proximity detection systems and specific benefits or hazards
that could result.
One commenter noted that coal haulers and scoops would encounter
sensors (miner-wearable components) much more frequently during
operation than would continuous mining machines. Thus, there is an
increased potential for nuisance tripping caused by inadvertent
exposure into the detection zones of coal haulers, scoops, and other
equipment. The commenter further noted the operation of equipment
during the mining process requires multiple machines to operate, often
in close proximity and can result in cross zone interference and
nuisance tripping. As an example, the commenter noted a mine had to
install additional equipment to help alleviate the cross zone
interference issue. MSHA is aware that proximity detection system
manufacturers must consider the interaction of machines with on-board
operators to prevent unnecessary shut downs. MSHA observed a loading
machine on which proximity detection equipment was installed to provide
a silent zone for the on-board loading machine operator. This silent
zone allowed the shuttle car to approach the loading machine without
the loading machine operator causing the shuttle car to stop. MSHA is
also aware that proximity detection system manufacturers have addressed
this situation through programming miner-wearable components with
specific permissions.
In addition, MSHA received a comment from a machine manufacturer
stating that its field testing experience with coal customers within
the United States demonstrates measurable section production tonnage
drops, within five to ten percent of normal production levels, when
proximity detection is active on haulage equipment.
MSHA is aware of mine operators that installed proximity detection
systems on all mobile machines on the working section and experienced
production decreases. Two of these mine operators reported that
production later returned to pre-installation levels. MSHA observed
that miners with experience working with mobile machines equipped with
proximity detection systems are aware of the warning and shutdown zone
locations and position themselves to minimize machine shutdowns. MSHA
did observe a proximity detection system provide both a warning and
then shut down the machine while the miner-wearable component was
physically located outside the established warning and shutdown zones.
This mine operator reported working with the proximity detection system
manufacturer to resolve this type of occurrence. MSHA is aware of
proximity detection system manufacturers that have mitigated nuisance
alarms and other issues through engineering solutions. MSHA is also
aware that proximity detection system manufacturers continue to improve
their technology and develop solutions to minimize unwarranted warnings
and shutdowns.
MSHA solicits definitive data, including cost and time estimates,
on delays in production caused by proximity detection system alarms due
to cross zone interference and nuisance tripping as well as data on the
length of time to return to pre-installation production levels. MSHA
also seeks information on how to reduce or eliminate production delays
when working with mobile machines equipped with proximity detection
systems.
MSHA solicits comments on how miners can place themselves in a safe
work position to avoid causing nuisance alarms when one or more
machines with proximity detection systems are on the working section.
MSHA also solicits comments on miners' and mine operators' experiences
when more than one miner may be in close proximity to one or more
machines with proximity detection systems.
MSHA solicited and received several comments on proposed training
for miners who operate or work near machines equipped with proximity
detection systems. NIOSH commented that gaining an in-depth view of
miners' perspectives and how their job tasks and environment could be
or are affected and then incorporating that information into training
may help to prevent accidents and injuries that have been labeled as
human error in the workplace. NIOSH further commented that studies of
continuous mining machine operators have found that unintended
consequences, such as a disruption in situational awareness, risks,
hazards, and decision-making capabilities, can be avoided if human
factors considerations are integrated into each stage of the technology
design and implementation process. In addition, NIOSH stated that each
piece of equipment needs to have a uniquely prescribed proximity system
and the methods and amounts of training for each system should be
designed specifically for each system and common platforms established
where possible.
One commenter stated that it has been evaluating and testing
proximity detection system technologies since 2011. The commenter
further stated that inadequate situational awareness is one of the
primary factors in incidents attributed to human error and that the
primary purpose of any proximity detection system/collision avoidance
technology is to enhance situational awareness.
Another commenter stated that proximity detection system technology
has the potential to dangerously change how miners interact with mobile
equipment in underground mines. The commenter further stated that it
has witnessed multiple instances where miners have taken higher risks
because of a false sense of security and that implementation of
proximity detection systems on all mobile machines will lead miners to
unsafely rely on the devices and act contrary to their intuition and
training. In addition, the commenter stated that the first priority [of
the final rule] should be a safe working position for a miner or
machine operator, and second a noncontact rule.
MSHA has observed miners relocate themselves to safer locations
because of proximity detection system visible and
[[Page 2289]]
audible warnings. These warnings increased the miner's situational
awareness regarding their location with respect to hazardous areas
around the mobile machines.
MSHA is interested in receiving additional information on miners'
and mine operators' experiences with the effect that proximity
detection systems have on miners' and machine operators' situational
awareness and any examples where reliance on proximity detection
technology may cause the miner to develop work practices that introduce
additional hazards.
MSHA observed representatives of mine operators and proximity
detection system manufacturers provide instruction and task training to
miners on the working section where proximity detection systems have
been installed on mobile machines. Miners have demonstrated their
knowledge of the installation, maintenance, and use of proximity
detection systems to MSHA personnel. For example, MSHA observed one
mine operator instruct miners to move into a crosscut adjacent to a
coal haulage travelway. This increased their distance from the coal
haulage travelway, averted unwanted proximity zone incursions, and
ultimately placed the workers in a safer location. MSHA also observed a
South African mine operator utilize data reports from the proximity
detection systems to reinforce safe work practices specified in company
policy. These data reports logged the instances when miner-wearable
components entered the established warning and shutdown zones.
MSHA is also interested in miners', mine operators' and proximity
detection system manufacturers' experiences with training that could be
done to increase miners' and machine operators' situational awareness
around machines with proximity detection systems.
2. Electromagnetic 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. Several
commenters noted that electromagnetic interference generated from a
variety of external sources can adversely affect the performance of
proximity detection systems. Several commenters stated that
electromagnetic interference prevents proximity detection systems from
functioning as designed. Another commenter stated that, because of
electromagnetic interference, the proximity detection system failed to
locate the miner-wearable component with any level of accuracy or
consistency. The commenter further stated that, as a result, it was
nearly impossible for the coal hauler to work in close proximity to the
continuous miner or operator.
In addition, on April 6, 2016, MSHA was made aware of concerns from
mine operators regarding electromagnetic interferences with proximity
detection systems from respirable coal mine dust sampling devices. On
April 15 and May 2, 2016, MSHA notified underground coal mine operators
who have a proximity detection system installed on any equipment that
they should identify sources of any electromagnetic interference that
adversely affect the performance of the proximity detection system. The
above-referenced notices are included in the rulemaking record.
Proposed Sec. 75.1733(b)(5) would require a mine operator to
install a proximity detection system to prevent interference that
adversely affects performance of any electrical system. MSHA clarifies
that proposed Sec. 75.1733(b)(5) would require mine operators to
prevent electromagnetic interference from affecting the operation of
the proximity detection system or any other electrical system. MSHA
intends that the system would be installed, maintained and operated in
such a way that no electrical systems would be adversely affected due
to interference. This would require periodic post-installation
evaluation of all new potential sources of electromagnetic
interference.
To clarify this intent, MSHA is considering a revision to proposed
Sec. 75.1733(b)(5) that would require proximity detection systems to
be both installed and operated in a manner that prevents interferences
that adversely affect the performance of any electrical system,
including the proximity detection system. The operation of other
electrical systems and equipment must not interfere with the
performance of the proximity detection system, and the proximity
detection system must not interfere with the performance of other
electrical systems.
MSHA has found that one type of common interference can be
identified when electrical devices are placed within several inches of
the miner-wearable component of the proximity detection system.
Electromagnetic interference between these two systems can be mitigated
by maintaining a minimum distance between a miner-wearable component
and electrical devices. MSHA's technical staff estimated that each mine
would require an average of 20 hours for a mining engineer to identify
sources of electromagnetic interference and the minimum distance needed
to mitigate the interference. Mining engineers will test the
compatibility between electrical devices and proximity detection system
components. Tests will be based on equipment use and mining conditions.
MSHA anticipates that mining engineers will conduct physical tests for
compatibility, review equipment user manuals, and consult with the
original equipment manufacturers and the proximity detection system
manufacturer.
Based on MSHA's mine visits, the Agency estimated that mine
operators are likely, on average, to introduce new electrical equipment
twice per year. This would require a mining engineer two hours to
identify and mitigate adverse interference from the new electrical
equipment.
Holding all other variables of the preliminary regulatory economic
analysis constant, MSHA estimated that, on average, it would cost each
mine operator $3,500 over ten years to comply with proposed Sec.
75.1733(b)(5). MSHA seeks comments on the cost drivers for
compatibility testing and the Agency's cost estimate for proposed Sec.
75.1733(b)(5).
MSHA is aware of best practices that mine operators and proximity
detection system manufacturers have established to minimize the effects
of electromagnetic interference. MSHA is aware that proximity detection
system manufacturers have stated that minimum separation distances need
to be maintained between miner-wearable components and other electrical
equipment. During mine visits, miners have demonstrated the ability to
maintain sufficient separation between miner-wearable components and
other equipment to ensure proper proximity detection system function.
MSHA is also aware of mine operators that have added inline filters on
variable frequency drive shuttle cars to reduce electromagnetic
emission interference. MSHA is aware of an electrical equipment
manufacturer that added material designed to provide electromagnetic
shielding to its gas detection equipment which reportedly reduced
interference with proximity detection systems.
MSHA solicits comments on the methods and practices mine operators
have used or could use to identify sources of electromagnetic
interference. MSHA is also interested in receiving information on the
actions an operator has taken or could take to prevent such
interference and how electromagnetic interference can be mitigated in
instances where a miner needs to wear
[[Page 2290]]
multiple miner-wearable components because different proximity
detection system models are operating on a working section. Please also
describe procedures that were successful and those that were not
successful in identifying interferences, as well as solutions to
prevent adverse interference.
MSHA has observed that wire mesh and metallic equipment can affect
the proximity detection systems' warning and stopping zones. MSHA has
also received reports of some pyrite deposits within coal seams
affecting the use of the proximity detection system, but has not
observed this effect first-hand. MSHA solicits information and data
from mine operators and proximity detection system manufacturers on
best practices to minimize the effects of these non-electrical
interferences.
Since the record closed, MSHA became aware of a proximity detection
system design feature on a miner-wearable component that determines if
the magnetic field sensing coils have been affected by electromagnetic
interference and can no longer detect the magnetic field generated by
the machine-mounted components. This feature provides a distinct
audible and visible alarm on the miner-wearable component to alert
miners when it is not functioning properly due to electromagnetic
interference. MSHA is considering requiring this design feature for all
miner-wearable components.
MSHA solicits comments on the cost and availability of, and
experience with, any proximity detection system feature or other
technology that automatically alerts the miner or machine operator when
the miner-wearable component or proximity detection system is not
functioning properly due to electromagnetic interference.
3. Proximity Detection System Checks
Proposed Sec. 75.1733(c)(1) would require that a mine operator
designate a person to 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. MSHA clarifies that under proposed paragraph (c)(1), the check
would include verification that the warning and shutdown zones are set
for the established proximity detection field distances and to meet the
performance requirements under proposed Sec. 75.1733(b)(1) and (b)(2).
Under proposed Sec. 75.1733(c)(1), the person designated to perform
the check would verify that the machine-mounted components are intact
and correctly mounted and the system is operating properly to identify
a miner-wearable component and stop the machine. The check assures that
the warning and shutdown zones around the perimeter of the machine are
set according to a mine operator's specifications. In MSHA's
experience, proximity detection system manufacturers have determined
the type of checks that should be conducted to assure that their system
is functioning properly. Mine operators are expected to follow the
check procedures suggested by the manufacturers. MSHA has observed that
a check of the warning and shutdown zones can be made by a miner
walking around the machine with a miner-wearable component to confirm
proper zone range. MSHA has also observed checking the machine shutdown
function of the proximity detection system. This check involves placing
a miner wearable component inside the shutdown zone and then attempting
to initiate machine movements such as tramming. If the proximity
detection system prevents machine movement, the system is functioning
properly.
The check would also include an examination of the machine-mounted
components to assure that the field generators, antennas, cabling, and
other components are undamaged and correctly mounted. The check would
also assure that appropriate audible and visual warning signals are
working as required. MSHA solicits comments on how the warning and
shutdown zones can be checked, or tested, without putting machine
operators at risk.
With the clarification in this notice, MSHA estimates that the
average time required for a check, which includes a verification that
the warning and shutdown zones are set to meet the performance
requirements under proposed Sec. 75.1733(b)(1) and (b)(2), would
increase from 20 seconds to 6 minutes. MSHA's revised estimate of 6
minutes reflects the time needed to: (1) Verify that the machine-
mounted components are intact and correctly mounted and the system is
operating properly to identify a miner-wearable component and stop the
machine, and (2) test and validate that the warning and stopping zones
meet performance requirements. MSHA substituted the 6 minutes into the
calculations of the proposed rule, held all other variables constant,
and calculated that the average 10-year cost per mine increase would be
$182,000. Many other assumptions and data values will be updated in a
final regulatory analysis. MSHA seeks comments on the Agency's
revisions to its proposed time estimate to comply with Sec.
75.1733(c)(1).
4. South Africa Field-Trip Report and NIOSH Partnership Meeting
The rulemaking record includes MSHA's Field-Trip Report on
Proximity Detection Use in South Africa. On April 2 through April 13,
2016, MSHA and NIOSH representatives visited South Africa to
investigate the progress of proximity detection system technology in
South Africa. The group visited two proximity detection system
manufacturing facilities and observed proximity detection system
performance in three underground coal mines. In addition, the group met
with a proximity detection system technology developer with experience
in proximity detection system development in South Africa and other
countries. Among other topics, they discussed the developer's
experiences with proximity detection system interference in South
Africa.
MSHA and NIOSH also met with representatives of South Africa's
Department of Mineral Resources on the implementation of proximity
detection systems on electric-powered, trackless mobile machinery in
South Africa's surface and underground mines. MSHA's report and
presentation materials from the South Africa trip are included in the
rulemaking record and available for comment.
MSHA has also included in the rulemaking record materials from the
NIOSH Proximity Detection Partnership Meeting. On June 22, 2016, NIOSH
held a partnership meeting that included representatives from MSHA,
industry, labor, and proximity detection system manufacturers.
Materials presented during the partnership meeting are included in the
rulemaking record and available for comment.
III. Compliance Cost Revision
MSHA initially estimated that the proposed rule would cost mine
operators, over ten years, approximately $536,000 per mine. MSHA has
revised estimates for two provisions to reflect the Agency's
clarification on the proposed requirements. Table 1 summarizes the
changes to estimated cost for these two provisions.
[[Page 2291]]
Table 1--Average 10-Year Total Cost per Mine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average 10-
year per mine
cost
---------------------------------------------------------
Total 10-Year Cost as Proposed on 09/02/ $536,000
2015...................................
Changes:
Proximity Detection System Checks... 182,000
Electromagnetic Interference 3,500
Evaluation.........................
-------------------------------
Total Change.................... 185,500
-------------------------------
Total Revised Cost...................... .............. $721,500
Percent increase in average cost per .............. 35%
mine...................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rulemaking record and comment period for the proposed rule is
reopened until February 8, 2017. MSHA solicits comments on all aspects
of the proposed rule. The Agency requests that comments be specific as
possible and include any technological and economic feasibility data.
Joseph A. Main,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2017-00105 Filed 1-6-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4520-43-P
