Petitions for Modification, 65076-65078 [E7-22561]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
65076
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 222 / Monday, November 19, 2007 / Notices
(citations omitted) (quoting United
States v. Gillette Co., 406 F. Supp.
713,716 (D. Mass. 1975)), affd sub nom.
Maryland v. United States, 460 U.S.
1001 (1983); see also United States v.
Alcan Aluminum Ltd., 605 F. Supp.
619,622 (W.D. Ky. 1985) (approving the
consent decree even though the court
would have imposed a greater remedy).
To meet this standard, the United States
‘‘need only provide a factual basis for
concluding that the settlements are
reasonably adequate remedies for the
alleged harms.’’ SBC Commc’ns, 489 F.
Supp. 2d at 17.
Moreover, the Court’s role under the
APPA is limited to reviewing the
remedy in relationship to the violations
that the United States has alleged in its
Complaint, and does not authorize the
Court to ‘‘construct [its] own
hypothetical case and then evaluate the
decree against that case.’’ Microsoft, 56
F.3d at 1459. Because the ‘‘court’s
authority to review the decree depends
entirely on the government’s exercising
its prosecutorial discretion by bringing
a case in the first place,’’ it follows that
‘‘the court is only authorized to review
the decree itself,’’ and not to ‘‘effectively
redraft the complaint’’ to inquire into
other matters that the United States did
not pursue. Id. at 1459–60. As this Court
recently confirmed in SBC
Communications, courts ‘‘cannot look
beyond the complaint in making the
public interest determination unless the
complaint is drafted so narrowly as to
make a mockery of judicial power.’’ SBC
Commc’ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 15.
In its 2004 amendments, Congress
made clear its intent to preserve the
practical benefits of utilizing consent
decrees in antitrust enforcement, adding
the unambiguous instruction ‘‘[n]othing
in this section shall be construed to
require the court to conduct an
evidentiary hearing or to require the
court to permit anyone to intervene.’’ 15
U.S.C. 16(e)(2). The language wrote into
the statute what the Congress that
enacted the Tunney Act in 1974
intended, as Senator Tunney then
explained: ‘‘[t]he court is nowhere
compelled to go to trial or to engage in
extended proceedings which might have
the effect of vitiating the benefits of
prompt and less costly settlement
through the consent decree process.’’
119 Cong. Rec. 24,598 (1973) (statement
of Senator Tunney). Rather, the
procedure for the public interest
determination is left to the discretion of
the court, with the recognition that the
court’s ‘‘scope of review remains
sharply proscribed by precedent and the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:17 Nov 16, 2007
Jkt 214001
nature of Tunney Act proceedings.’’
SBC Commc’ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 11.3
VIII. Determinative Documents
There are no determinative materials
or documents within the meaning of the
APPA that were considered by plaintiff
United States in formulating the
proposed Final Judgment.
October 30, 2007.
Respectfully submitted,
llllllll
Hillary B. Burchuk (D.C. Bar No. 366755),
Lawrence M. Frankel (DC Bar No. 441532),
Rebekah P. Goodheart (DC Bar No.
472673),
Attorneys, Telecommunications & Media
Enforcement Section, Antitrust Division,
U.S. Department of Justice, City Center
Building, 1401 H Street, NW., Suite 8000,
Washington, DC 20530. (202) 514–5621,
Facsimile: (202) 514–6381.
[FR Doc. 07–5719 Filed 11–16–07; 8:45 am]
DATED:
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Petitions for Modification
Mine Safety and Health
Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Notice of petitions for
modification of existing mandatory
safety standards.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Section 101(c) of the Federal
Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and
30 CFR Part 44 govern the application,
processing, and disposition of petitions
for modification. This notice is a
summary of petitions for modification
filed by the parties listed below to
modify the application of existing
mandatory safety standards published
in Title 30 of the Code of Federal
Regulations.
DATES: All comments on the petitions
must be received by the Office of
Standards, Regulations, and Variances
on or before December 19, 2007.
3 See United States v. Enova Corp., 107 F. Supp.
2d 10, 17 (D.D.C. 2000) (noting that the ‘‘Tunney
Act expressly allows the court to make its public
interest determination on the basis of the
competitive impact statement and response to
comments alone’’); S. Rep. No. 93–298, 93d Cong.,
1st Sess., at 6 (1973) (‘‘Where the public interest can
be meaningfully evaluated simply on the basis of
briefs and oral arguments, that is the approach that
should be utilized.’’); United States v. Mid-Am.
Dairymen, Inc., 1977–1 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 61,508,
at 71,980 (W.D. Mo. 1977) (‘‘Absent a showing of
corrupt failure of the government to discharge its
duty, the Court, in making its public interest
finding, should * * * carefully consider the
explanations of the government in the competitive
impact statement and its responses to comments in
order to determine whether those explanations are
reasonable under the circumstances.’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
You may submit your
comments, identified by ‘‘docket
number’’ on the subject line, by any of
the following methods:
1. Electronic mail: StandardsPetitions@dol.gov.
2. Facsimile: 1–202–693–9441.
3. Regular Mail: MSHA, Office of
Standards, Regulations, and Variances,
1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2349,
Arlington, Virginia 22209, Attention:
Patricia W. Silvey, Director, Office of
Standards, Regulations, and Variances.
4. Hand-Delivery or Courier: MSHA,
Office of Standards, Regulations, and
Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard,
Room 2349, Arlington, Virginia 22209,
Attention: Patricia W. Silvey, Director,
Office of Standards, Regulations, and
Variances.
We will consider only comments
postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service or
proof of delivery from another delivery
service such as UPS or Federal Express
on or before the deadline for comments.
Individuals who submit comments by
hand-delivery are required to check in
at the receptionist desk on the 21st
floor.
Individuals may inspect copies of the
petitions and comments during normal
business hours at the address listed
above.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Edward Sexauer, Chief, Regulatory
Development Division at 202–693–9444
(Voice), sexauer.edward@dol.gov
(E-mail), or 202–693–9441 (Telefax), or
contact Barbara Barron at 202–693–9447
(Voice), barron.barbara@dol.gov
(E-mail), or 202–693–9441 (Telefax).
[These are not toll-free numbers].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine
Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine
Act) allows the mine operator or
representative of miners to file a
petition to modify the application of any
mandatory safety standard to a coal or
other mine if the Secretary determines
that: (1) An alternative method of
achieving the result of such standard
exists which will at all times guarantee
no less than the same measure of
protection afforded the miners of such
mine by such standard; or (2) that the
application of such standard to such
mine will result in a diminution of
safety to the miners in such mine. In
addition, the regulations at 30 CFR
44.10 and 44.11 establish the
requirements and procedures for filing
petitions for modifications.
II. Petitions for Modification
Docket Number: M–2007–061–C.
E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM
19NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 222 / Monday, November 19, 2007 / Notices
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Petitioner: D & R Coal Company, P.O.
Box 728, Barbourville, Kentucky 40906.
Mine: Mine # 3, MSHA I.D. No. 15–
19018, located in Knox County,
Kentucky.
Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.342
(Methane monitors).
Modification Request: The petitioner
requests a modification of the existing
standard to permit the use of hand-held
continuous-duty methane and oxygen
indicators in lieu of machine-mounted
methane monitors on three-wheel
tractors with drag bottom buckets. The
petitioner states that: (1) All persons
will be qualified to use the hand-held
detectors; (2) a gas test will be taken to
determine if any methane concentration
is present in the atmosphere prior to
allowing the coal-loading tractor in the
face area and air quality will be
monitored by the hand-held detector
during each trip; (3) if one percent (1%)
of methane is detected, the operator will
manually de-energize his/her battery
operated tractor immediately,
production will immediately cease,
work will be performed to eliminate the
elevated methane levels, and production
will resume when the methane has been
lowered to less than one percent; (4) a
spare continuous-duty hand-held
methane and oxygen detector will be
available to ensure that all coal hauling
tractors are equipped with a working
detector; and (5) the monitors will be
inspected daily and fully charged,
calibrated at least every 30 days, and
will not be changed from manufacturer’s
specifications unless by a person
qualified to do so. The petitioner asserts
that application of the existing standard
reduces protection and the proposed
alternative method would greatly
increase the safety and well being of
miners.
Docket Number: M–2007–062-C.
Petitioner: D & R Coal Company, Inc.,
P.O. Box 728, Barbourville, Kentucky
40906.
Mine: Mine # 3, MSHA I.D. No. 15–
19018, located in Knox County,
Kentucky.
Regulation Affected: 30 CFR
75.380(f)(4) (Escapeways; bituminous
and lignite mines).
Modification Request: The petitioner
requests a modification of the existing to
permit an alternative method for the use
of mobile equipment traveling in the
primary escapeway. The petitioner
asserts that technology has not
developed a fire suppression system
that will fit on the type of equipment
used in this mine, which is operated in
the Blue Gem Seam of coal and has
seam averaging 24 to 25 inches. The
petitioner proposes to use portable fire
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:17 Nov 16, 2007
Jkt 214001
suppression equipment on three-wheel
tractors in lieu of installing fire
suppression systems. The petitioner
proposes to use one twenty or two ten
pound portable chemical fire
extinguishers on each Mescher tractor
used at the mine. If two extinguishers
are used, a ten pound extinguisher will
be mounted in the operators’ deck with
the other mounted on the tractor
accessible to the operator. If one
extinguisher is used, it will be mounted
in the operators’ deck. In either case, the
petitioner proposes to use a total of
twenty pounds of fire extinguisher
capability on each Mescher tractor,
which will be readily available to the
operator. The petitioner states that: (1)
The fire hazard potential on a Mescher
tractor is extremely low because no
hydraulics are used on these machines;
(2) all other components of the tractor
are permissible and are not susceptible
to fire hazard; (3) the equipment
operator will inspect each fire
extinguisher daily before entering the
primary escapeway; (4) a record of the
inspections will be maintained; and (5)
defective fire extinguishers will be
replaced prior to entering the mine. The
petitioner further states that: (1) The
main travelway of the mine is also the
primary escapeway; (2) the amount of
time each Mescher tractor is in the
primary escapeway is limited to the
travel time to the face at the start of the
shift, at mid-shift, to change batteries,
and to travel out at the end of the shift
during which time the drag bucket is
empty and the tractor is not transporting
coal; (3) portable fire suppression
equipment can be used to direct the
chemical fire suppressant by the
operator in a more effective manner in
case there is a fire; and (4) in this low
coal mine the small fire extinguishers
would be more effective to extinguish a
fire than the machine-mounted systems.
The petitioner also states that
application of the existing standard will
reduce the safety of the affected miners,
since fire suppression equipment is not
presently available for this type of
equipment and currently, technology
does not provide fire suppression
equipment for the type of machinery
used at the mine. The petitioner asserts
that the proposed alternative method
would provide at least the same
measure of protection as the existing
standard.
Docket Number: M–2007–063-C.
Petitioner: Alden Resources, LLC, 332
W. Cumberland Gap Parkway, Suite
100, Corbin, Kentucky 40701.
Mine: Bain Branch Refuse Piles (I.D.
No. 1211-KY7–07157–01), MSHA I.D.
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
65077
No. 15–17691, located in Whitley
County, Kentucky.
Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 77.214(a)
(Refuse piles; general).
Modification Request: The petitioner
requests a modification of the existing
standard because: (1) The proposed
refuse pile is constructed over
abandoned underground mine openings
in the Blue Gem coal bed; (2) the
abandoned openings have been sealed
and backfilled with dirt; and (3) the
abandoned pit is a ‘‘box-cut’’ and the
refuse will be placed in 2-foot lifts and
used to reclaim the pit to approximately
the original contour. The petitioner
states that: (1) The proposed
modification will not reduce or
diminish the safety of the proposed
refuse pile since the pit being reclaimed
is a box-cut and the dip of the coal seam
is away from the portal area; (2) there is
no danger of water from the abandoned
workings saturating the fill and causing
a failure; and (3) modification of the
standard will allow for safe disposal of
coal refuse at this site and will allow
mining to continue in the area. The
petitioner asserts that the proposed
alternative method would provide at
least the same measure of protection as
the existing standard.
Docket Number: M–2007–064-C.
Petitioner: P & A Engineers and
Consultants, Inc., for Stirrat Coal
Company, P.O. Box 279, Louisa,
Kentucky 41230.
Preparation Plant, MSHA I.D. No. 46–
02515, located in Logan County, West
Virginia.
Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 77.214(a)
(Refuse piles; general).
Modification Request: The petitioner
requests a modification of the existing
standard to permit a dry refuse structure
to be added to the existing plant and
rescue facility located near Stirrat in
Logan County, West Virginia. The
petitioner states that: (1) The mine
(Williamson Seam) was faced up using
the conventional method of creating two
mine benches and two high-walls for
the mine entries; (2) it is estimated that
mining was completed in Mid-1988; (3)
the mine seals were certified by
Registered Professional Engineer on
September 20, 1988; and (4) upon
completion of mining the portals were
sealed and the high-walls were returned
to an approximate 2:1 slope; and (5) a
6-inch Interior Diameter (ID) steel drain
was installed eliminating any potential
head of water on the mine seals. The
petitioner has provided with this
petition a photo of the installed drain
pipe and the backfilled portals. The
petitioner further states that: (1) The
existing drain pipe will be routed to the
outside and beyond the limits of the
E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM
19NON1
65078
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 222 / Monday, November 19, 2007 / Notices
coarse refuse fill; and (2) a rock filter
will be placed around the extended pipe
and wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi
140N or equivalent) and extended
through the refuse pile. The petitioner
asserts that the proposed alternative
method would provide at least the same
measure of protection as the existing
standard.
Docket Number: M–2007–065-C.
Petitioner: R S & W Coal Company,
207 Creek Road, Klingerstown,
Pennsylvania 17941.
Mine: R S & W Drift Mine, MSHA I.D.
No. 36–01818, located Schuylkill
County, Pennsylvania.
Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.311(a)
(Main mine fan operation).
Modification Request: The petitioner
requests a modification of the existing
standard to allow the main mine fan to
be idle during non-working hours. The
petitioner states that historically, the
main mine fan operation has been shut
down during non-working shifts,
because of icing during the winter
months. The petitioner proposes to use
the following stipulations in the fan
stoppage plan: (1) Shut the main mine
fan down during idle periods; (2) no
mechanized equipment will be used
underground; (3) no electric power
circuits enter the underground mine; (4)
the main mine fan will be operated for
a minimum of one-half hour after the
pressure recorder indicates that the
normal mine ventilating pressure has
been reached prior to any one entering
the mine; (5) the mine battery
locomotive may be used to make the
required pre-shift examination; (6) the
communication circuit 9-volts will be
energized prior to the pre-shift being
made;
(7) a certified person will conduct an
examination of the entire mine
according to the requirements in 30 CFR
75.360; (8) persons will be allowed to
enter the mine after it is determined to
be safe and the pre-shift examination
results have been recorded. The
petitioner further states that the
gangway, chutes, and headings are
developed in rock and tests have shown
that measurements taken every three
seconds at the main mine fan found no
detectable methane concentrations. The
petitioner asserts that the proposed
alternative method would provide at
least the same measure of protection as
the existing standard.
Dated: November 13, 2007.
Jack Powasnik,
Deputy Director, Office of Standards,
Regulations, and Variances.
[FR Doc. E7–22561 Filed 11–16–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–43–P
LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
Notice of Intent To Award—Grant
Awards for the Provision of Civil Legal
Services to Eligible Low-Income
Clients Beginning January 1, 2008
AGENCY:
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
All comments and
recommendations must be received on
or before the close of business on
December 19, 2007.
DATES:
Legal Services
Corporation—Competitive Grants, Legal
Services Corporation; 3333 K Street,
NW., Third Floor; Washington, DC
2007.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Reginald Haley, Office of Program
Performance, at (202) 295–1545, or
haleyr@lsc.gov.
Pursuant
to LSC’s announcement of funding
availability on April 13, 2007 (72 FR
18690), and Grant Renewal applications
due on June 14, 2007, LSC intends to
award funds to the following
organizations to provide civil legal
services in the indicated service areas.
Amounts are subject to change.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Applicant name
Alabama:
AL–4 ..................................................
MAL ...................................................
Alaska:
AK–1 ..................................................
NAK–1 ...............................................
Arizona:
AZ–2 ..................................................
AZ–3 ..................................................
AZ–5 ..................................................
MAZ ...................................................
NAZ–5 ................................................
NAZ–6 ................................................
Arkansas:
AR–6 ..................................................
AR–7 ..................................................
MAR ...................................................
California:
CA–1 ..................................................
CA–2 ..................................................
CA–12 ................................................
CA–14 ................................................
CA–19 ................................................
CA–26 ................................................
CA–27 ................................................
CA–28 ................................................
CA–29 ................................................
CA–30 ................................................
CA–31 ................................................
MCA ...................................................
20:17 Nov 16, 2007
SUMMARY: The Legal Services
Corporation (LSC) hereby announces its
intention to award grants and contracts
to provide economical and effective
delivery of high quality civil legal
services to eligible low-income clients,
beginning January 1, 2008.
Legal Services Corporation.
Service area
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Announcement of intention to
make FY 2008 Competitive Grant
Awards.
ACTION:
Jkt 214001
Grant amount
Legal Services Alabama, Inc .......................................................................................
Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, Inc ..................................................................................
$6,194,159
31,723
Alaska Legal Services Corporation ..............................................................................
Alaska Legal Services Corporation ..............................................................................
717,081
522,566
DNA-Peoples Legal Services, Inc ................................................................................
Community Legal Services, Inc ...................................................................................
Southern Arizona Legal Aid, Inc ..................................................................................
Community Legal Services, Inc ...................................................................................
DNA-Peoples Legal Services, Inc ................................................................................
Southern Arizona Legal Aid, Inc ..................................................................................
520,360
3,755,950
1,811,524
143,149
2,521,402
615,905
Legal Aid of Arkansas, Inc ...........................................................................................
Center for Arkansas Legal Services ............................................................................
Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, Inc ..................................................................................
1,442,661
2,153,508
76,207
California Indian Legal Services, Inc ...........................................................................
Greater Bakersfield Legal Assistance, Inc ...................................................................
Inland Counties Legal Services, Inc ............................................................................
Legal Aid Society of San Diego, Inc ............................................................................
Legal Aid Society of Orange County, Inc ....................................................................
Central California Legal Services ................................................................................
Legal Services of Northern California, Inc ...................................................................
Bay Area Legal Aid ......................................................................................................
Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles ..........................................................................
Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County ................................................
California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc .........................................................................
California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc .........................................................................
32,757
910,038
4,043,496
2,827,558
3,949,336
2,847,151
3,518,106
4,147,448
7,863,346
4,644,807
4,641,722
2,545,202
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM
19NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 222 (Monday, November 19, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65076-65078]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-22561]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Petitions for Modification
AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Notice of petitions for modification of existing mandatory
safety standards.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of
1977 and 30 CFR Part 44 govern the application, processing, and
disposition of petitions for modification. This notice is a summary of
petitions for modification filed by the parties listed below to modify
the application of existing mandatory safety standards published in
Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
DATES: All comments on the petitions must be received by the Office of
Standards, Regulations, and Variances on or before December 19, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may submit your comments, identified by ``docket
number'' on the subject line, by any of the following methods:
1. Electronic mail: Standards-Petitions@dol.gov.
2. Facsimile: 1-202-693-9441.
3. Regular Mail: MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and
Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2349, Arlington, Virginia 22209,
Attention: Patricia W. Silvey, Director, Office of Standards,
Regulations, and Variances.
4. Hand-Delivery or Courier: MSHA, Office of Standards,
Regulations, and Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2349,
Arlington, Virginia 22209, Attention: Patricia W. Silvey, Director,
Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances.
We will consider only comments postmarked by the U.S. Postal
Service or proof of delivery from another delivery service such as UPS
or Federal Express on or before the deadline for comments. Individuals
who submit comments by hand-delivery are required to check in at the
receptionist desk on the 21st floor.
Individuals may inspect copies of the petitions and comments during
normal business hours at the address listed above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Sexauer, Chief, Regulatory
Development Division at 202-693-9444 (Voice), sexauer.edward@dol.gov
(E-mail), or 202-693-9441 (Telefax), or contact Barbara Barron at 202-
693-9447 (Voice), barron.barbara@dol.gov (E-mail), or 202-693-9441
(Telefax). [These are not toll-free numbers].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977
(Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file
a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard
to a coal or other mine if the Secretary determines that: (1) An
alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists
which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of
protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or (2)
that the application of such standard to such mine will result in a
diminution of safety to the miners in such mine. In addition, the
regulations at 30 CFR 44.10 and 44.11 establish the requirements and
procedures for filing petitions for modifications.
II. Petitions for Modification
Docket Number: M-2007-061-C.
[[Page 65077]]
Petitioner: D & R Coal Company, P.O. Box 728, Barbourville,
Kentucky 40906.
Mine: Mine 3, MSHA I.D. No. 15-19018, located in Knox
County, Kentucky.
Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.342 (Methane monitors).
Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of the
existing standard to permit the use of hand-held continuous-duty
methane and oxygen indicators in lieu of machine-mounted methane
monitors on three-wheel tractors with drag bottom buckets. The
petitioner states that: (1) All persons will be qualified to use the
hand-held detectors; (2) a gas test will be taken to determine if any
methane concentration is present in the atmosphere prior to allowing
the coal-loading tractor in the face area and air quality will be
monitored by the hand-held detector during each trip; (3) if one
percent (1%) of methane is detected, the operator will manually de-
energize his/her battery operated tractor immediately, production will
immediately cease, work will be performed to eliminate the elevated
methane levels, and production will resume when the methane has been
lowered to less than one percent; (4) a spare continuous-duty hand-held
methane and oxygen detector will be available to ensure that all coal
hauling tractors are equipped with a working detector; and (5) the
monitors will be inspected daily and fully charged, calibrated at least
every 30 days, and will not be changed from manufacturer's
specifications unless by a person qualified to do so. The petitioner
asserts that application of the existing standard reduces protection
and the proposed alternative method would greatly increase the safety
and well being of miners.
Docket Number: M-2007-062-C.
Petitioner: D & R Coal Company, Inc., P.O. Box 728, Barbourville,
Kentucky 40906.
Mine: Mine 3, MSHA I.D. No. 15-19018, located in Knox
County, Kentucky.
Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.380(f)(4) (Escapeways; bituminous
and lignite mines).
Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of the
existing to permit an alternative method for the use of mobile
equipment traveling in the primary escapeway. The petitioner asserts
that technology has not developed a fire suppression system that will
fit on the type of equipment used in this mine, which is operated in
the Blue Gem Seam of coal and has seam averaging 24 to 25 inches. The
petitioner proposes to use portable fire suppression equipment on
three-wheel tractors in lieu of installing fire suppression systems.
The petitioner proposes to use one twenty or two ten pound portable
chemical fire extinguishers on each Mescher tractor used at the mine.
If two extinguishers are used, a ten pound extinguisher will be mounted
in the operators' deck with the other mounted on the tractor accessible
to the operator. If one extinguisher is used, it will be mounted in the
operators' deck. In either case, the petitioner proposes to use a total
of twenty pounds of fire extinguisher capability on each Mescher
tractor, which will be readily available to the operator. The
petitioner states that: (1) The fire hazard potential on a Mescher
tractor is extremely low because no hydraulics are used on these
machines; (2) all other components of the tractor are permissible and
are not susceptible to fire hazard; (3) the equipment operator will
inspect each fire extinguisher daily before entering the primary
escapeway; (4) a record of the inspections will be maintained; and (5)
defective fire extinguishers will be replaced prior to entering the
mine. The petitioner further states that: (1) The main travelway of the
mine is also the primary escapeway; (2) the amount of time each Mescher
tractor is in the primary escapeway is limited to the travel time to
the face at the start of the shift, at mid-shift, to change batteries,
and to travel out at the end of the shift during which time the drag
bucket is empty and the tractor is not transporting coal; (3) portable
fire suppression equipment can be used to direct the chemical fire
suppressant by the operator in a more effective manner in case there is
a fire; and (4) in this low coal mine the small fire extinguishers
would be more effective to extinguish a fire than the machine-mounted
systems. The petitioner also states that application of the existing
standard will reduce the safety of the affected miners, since fire
suppression equipment is not presently available for this type of
equipment and currently, technology does not provide fire suppression
equipment for the type of machinery used at the mine. The petitioner
asserts that the proposed alternative method would provide at least the
same measure of protection as the existing standard.
Docket Number: M-2007-063-C.
Petitioner: Alden Resources, LLC, 332 W. Cumberland Gap Parkway,
Suite 100, Corbin, Kentucky 40701.
Mine: Bain Branch Refuse Piles (I.D. No. 1211-KY7-07157-01), MSHA
I.D. No. 15-17691, located in Whitley County, Kentucky.
Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 77.214(a) (Refuse piles; general).
Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of the
existing standard because: (1) The proposed refuse pile is constructed
over abandoned underground mine openings in the Blue Gem coal bed; (2)
the abandoned openings have been sealed and backfilled with dirt; and
(3) the abandoned pit is a ``box-cut'' and the refuse will be placed in
2-foot lifts and used to reclaim the pit to approximately the original
contour. The petitioner states that: (1) The proposed modification will
not reduce or diminish the safety of the proposed refuse pile since the
pit being reclaimed is a box-cut and the dip of the coal seam is away
from the portal area; (2) there is no danger of water from the
abandoned workings saturating the fill and causing a failure; and (3)
modification of the standard will allow for safe disposal of coal
refuse at this site and will allow mining to continue in the area. The
petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method would provide
at least the same measure of protection as the existing standard.
Docket Number: M-2007-064-C.
Petitioner: P & A Engineers and Consultants, Inc., for Stirrat Coal
Company, P.O. Box 279, Louisa, Kentucky 41230.
Preparation Plant, MSHA I.D. No. 46-02515, located in Logan County,
West Virginia.
Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 77.214(a) (Refuse piles; general).
Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of the
existing standard to permit a dry refuse structure to be added to the
existing plant and rescue facility located near Stirrat in Logan
County, West Virginia. The petitioner states that: (1) The mine
(Williamson Seam) was faced up using the conventional method of
creating two mine benches and two high-walls for the mine entries; (2)
it is estimated that mining was completed in Mid-1988; (3) the mine
seals were certified by Registered Professional Engineer on September
20, 1988; and (4) upon completion of mining the portals were sealed and
the high-walls were returned to an approximate 2:1 slope; and (5) a 6-
inch Interior Diameter (ID) steel drain was installed eliminating any
potential head of water on the mine seals. The petitioner has provided
with this petition a photo of the installed drain pipe and the
backfilled portals. The petitioner further states that: (1) The
existing drain pipe will be routed to the outside and beyond the limits
of the
[[Page 65078]]
coarse refuse fill; and (2) a rock filter will be placed around the
extended pipe and wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or equivalent)
and extended through the refuse pile. The petitioner asserts that the
proposed alternative method would provide at least the same measure of
protection as the existing standard.
Docket Number: M-2007-065-C.
Petitioner: R S & W Coal Company, 207 Creek Road, Klingerstown,
Pennsylvania 17941.
Mine: R S & W Drift Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 36-01818, located
Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania.
Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.311(a) (Main mine fan operation).
Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of the
existing standard to allow the main mine fan to be idle during non-
working hours. The petitioner states that historically, the main mine
fan operation has been shut down during non-working shifts, because of
icing during the winter months. The petitioner proposes to use the
following stipulations in the fan stoppage plan: (1) Shut the main mine
fan down during idle periods; (2) no mechanized equipment will be used
underground; (3) no electric power circuits enter the underground mine;
(4) the main mine fan will be operated for a minimum of one-half hour
after the pressure recorder indicates that the normal mine ventilating
pressure has been reached prior to any one entering the mine; (5) the
mine battery locomotive may be used to make the required pre-shift
examination; (6) the communication circuit 9-volts will be energized
prior to the pre-shift being made;
(7) a certified person will conduct an examination of the entire
mine according to the requirements in 30 CFR 75.360; (8) persons will
be allowed to enter the mine after it is determined to be safe and the
pre-shift examination results have been recorded. The petitioner
further states that the gangway, chutes, and headings are developed in
rock and tests have shown that measurements taken every three seconds
at the main mine fan found no detectable methane concentrations. The
petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method would provide
at least the same measure of protection as the existing standard.
Dated: November 13, 2007.
Jack Powasnik,
Deputy Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances.
[FR Doc. E7-22561 Filed 11-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-43-P
