Petitions for Modification, 12774-12776 [E8-4758]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
12774
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 47 / Monday, March 10, 2008 / Notices
whether the settlement is ‘‘within the reaches
of the public interest.’’ More elaborate
requirements might undermine the
effectiveness of antitrust enforcement by
consent decree.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Bechtel, 648 F.2d at 666 (emphasis
added) (citations omitted).4 In
determining whether a proposed
settlement is in the public interest, a
district court ‘‘must accord deference to
the government’s predictions about the
efficacy of its remedies, and may not
require that the remedies perfectly
match the alleged violations.’’ SBC
Commc’ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 17; see
also Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 (noting
the need for courts to be ‘‘deferential to
the government’s predictions as to the
effect of the proposed remedies’’);
United States v. Archer-DanielsMidland Co., 272 F. Supp. 2d 1, 6
(D.D.C. 2003) (noting that the court
should grant due respect to the United
States’ prediction as to the effect of
proposed remedies, its perception of the
market structure, and its views of the
nature of the case).
Courts have greater flexibility in
approving proposed consent decrees
than in crafting their own decrees
following a finding of liability in a
litigated matter. ‘‘[A] proposed decree
must be approved even if it falls short
of the remedy the court would impose
on its own, as long as it falls within the
range of acceptability or is ‘within the
reaches of public interest.’ ’ United
States v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 552 F.
Supp. 131, 151 (D.D.C. 1982) (citations
omitted) (quoting United States v.
Gillette Co., 406 F. Supp. 713, 716 (D.
Mass. 1975)), aff’d 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
4 Cf. BNS, 858 F.2d at 464 (holding that the
court’s ‘‘ultimate authority under the [APPA] is
limited to approving or disapproving the consent
decree’’); United States v. Gillette Co., 406 F. Supp.
713, 716 (D. Mass. 1975) (noting that, in this way,
the court is constrained to ‘‘look at the overall
picture not hypercritically, nor with a microscope,
but with an artist’s reducing glass’’). See generally
Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 (discussing whether ‘‘the
remedies [obtained in the decree are] so
inconsonant with the allegations charged as to fall
outside of the ‘reaches of the public interest’ ’’).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:50 Mar 07, 2008
Jkt 214001
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 that
‘‘[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
Congress intended when it enacted the
Tunney Act in 1974, as Senator Tunney
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
nature of Tunney Act proceedings.’’
SBC Commc’ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 11.5
VIII. Determinative Documents
There are no determinative materials
or documents within the meaning of the
5 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 00073
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
APPA that were considered by the
United States in formulating the
proposed Final Judgment.
Dated: February 25, 2008.
Respectfully Submitted,
Peter J. Mucchetti (DC Bar # 463202)
Mitchell H. Glende
N. Christopher Hardee (DC Bar # 458168)
Tiffany C. Joseph-Daniels
Barry J. Joyce
Ryan M. Kantor
John P. Lohrer (DC Bar # 438939)
Richard S. Martin
Natalie A. Rosenfelt
Michelle Seltzer (DC Bar # 475482)
Attorneys, Litigation I Section, Antitrust
Division, United States Department of
Justice City Center Building, 1401 H
Street, NW., Suite 4000, Washington, DC
20530, (202) 307–0001, (202) 307–5802
(facsimile).
[FR Doc. E8–4393 Filed 3–7–08; 8:45 am]
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 April 9, 2008.
ADDRESSES: 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,
E:\FR\FM\10MRN1.SGM
10MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 47 / Monday, March 10, 2008 / Notices
II. Petitions for Modification
points at certain points to evaluate
airflow entering the Parallel Owens
Branch Return Main and exiting Parallel
Owens Branch Return Main. The
petitioner also proposes to establish
ventilation check points between certain
breaks of the Parallel Owens Branch
Return Main. The petitioner states that
due to poor roof conditions and water
accumulations and the distance from
active works, it is impractical to expose
personnel to traveling the affected area.
The petitioner further states that no
lesser degree of safety is ensured by
traveling to both ends of the mains and
verifying adequate air volume and
quality at the evaluation points and
check points. The petitioner asserts that
the proposed alternative method will at
all times guarantee no less than the
same measure of protection afforded by
the existing standard.
Docket Number: M–2008–003–C.
Petitioner: Brooks Run Mining
Company, LLC, 208 Business Street,
Beckley, West Virginia 25801.
Mine: Wyoming No. 1 Mine, MSHA
I.D. No. 46–09213 located in Wyoming
County, West Virginia; and War Branch
No. 1 Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 46–09055
and Cucumber Slope Mine, MSHA I.D.
No. 46–09066 located in McDowell
County, West Virginia.
Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1101–
1(b) (Deluge-type water spray systems).
Modification Request: The petitioner
requests a modification of the existing
standard to allow the deluge-type water
spray to function without blow-off dust
covers on the system nozzles. The
petitioner proposes to conduct weekly
inspection and functional testing of its
complete deluge-type water spray
system and remove blow-off dust cover
from the nozzles. The petitioner asserts
that application of the existing standard
will at all times guarantee no less than
the same measure of protection afforded
the miners employed by the existing
standard.
Docket Number: M–2008–002–C.
Petitioner: Blue Diamond Coal
Company, P.O. Box 47, Slemp,
Kentucky 41763.
Mine: Mine #75, MSHA I.D. No. 15–
17478, located in Perry County,
Kentucky.
Regulation Affected: 30 CFR
75.364(b)(2) (Weekly examination).
Modification Request: The petitioner
requests a modification of the existing
standard to permit check points
(examination points) to be established
in twelve locations of the Parallel
Owens Branch Return Main due to
water accumulations in these areas that
prevent foot travel. The petitioner
proposes to establish examination
Docket Number: M–2008–004–C.
Petitioner: The American Coal
Company, P.O. Box 727, Harrisburg,
Illinois 62946.
Mine: Galatia Mine, MSHA I.D. No.
11–02752, located in Saline County,
Illinois.
Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.503
(Permissible electric face equipment;
maintenance) and 30 CFR 18.35(a)(5)(i),
(ii) (Portable (trailing) cables and cords).
Modification Request: The petitioner
requests a modification of the existing
standard to increase the maximum
length of cables supplying power to
permissible equipment used in
continuous mining sections. The
petitioner states that: (1) This petition
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.
Jack
Powasnik, Deputy Director, Office of
Standards, Regulations, and Variances
at 202–693–9443 (Voice),
powasnik.jack@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:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
I. Background
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:39 Mar 07, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12775
will only apply to trailing cables
supplying three-phase, 995-volt power
to continuous mining machines and
trailing cables supplying three-phase,
480-volt power to roof bolters; (2) the
maximum length of the 995-volt
continuous mining machine trailing
cables will be 950 feet and the
maximum length of the 480-volt trailing
cables for roof bolters will be 900 feet;
(3) 995-volt continuous mining machine
trailing cables will not be smaller than
2/0 and the 480-volt trailing cables for
roof bolters will not be smaller than #2
American Wire Gauge (AWG); (4) all
circuit breakers used to protect 2/0
trailing cables exceeding 850 feet in
length will have instantaneous trip units
calibrated to trip at 1,500 amperes and
the trip setting will be sealed or locked
and will have permanent legible
permanent labels that will be
maintained as legible to identify the
circuit breaker as being suitable for
protecting 2/0 cables; (5) replacement
instantaneous trip units, used to protect
2/0 trailing cables, will be calibrated to
trip at 1,500 amperes and the setting
will be sealed or locked; (6) all circuit
breakers used to protect #2 AWG
trailing cables exceeding 700 feet in
length will have instantaneous trip units
calibrated to trip at 700 amperes, the
trip setting will be sealed or locked, and
the circuit breakers will have permanent
legible labels that will be maintained as
legible to identify the circuit breakers as
being suitable for protecting #2 AWG
cables; (7) replacement instantaneous
trip units used to protect #2 AWG
trailing cables will be calibrated to trip
at 700 amperes and the setting will be
sealed or locked; (8) the designated
operator will visually examine the
trailing cables during each production
day to ensure that the cables are
operating safely and the instantaneous
settings of the calibrated breakers do not
have seals or locks removed and do not
exceed the stipulated settings; and (9)
any trailing cable that is not in safe
operating condition will be removed
from service immediately and repaired
or replaced; (10) each splice or repair in
the trailing cables will be made in a
workmanlike manner and in accordance
with the instructions of the
manufacturer of the splice or repair
materials and will comply with 30 CFR
75.603 and 75.604; (11) permanent
warning labels will be installed and
maintained on the cover(s) of the power
center identifying the location of each
sealed or locked short-circuit protection
device to warn the miners not to change
or alter the short-circuit settings.
Persons may review a complete
description of petitioner’s alternative
E:\FR\FM\10MRN1.SGM
10MRN1
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
12776
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 47 / Monday, March 10, 2008 / Notices
method and procedures at the MSHA
address listed in the notice. The
petitioner states that the alternative
method will not be implemented until
miners designated to examine the
integrity of the seals or locks verify the
short-circuit settings, and proper
procedures training have been provided
for examining trailing cables for defects
and damage. The training for the miners
will include the following elements: (1)
Training in mining methods and
operating procedures for protecting the
trailing cables against damage; (2)
training in the proper procedures for
examining the trailing cables to ensure
safe operating conditions; (3) training in
the hazards of setting the instantaneous
circuit breakers too high to adequately
protect the trailing cables; and (4)
training on how to verify that
interrupting device(s) protecting the
trailing cable(s) are properly set and
maintained. The petitioner further state
that within 60 days after the petition is
granted, revisions to the Part 48 training
plan will be submitted to the District
Manager for the area in which the mine
is located. The petitioner asserts that the
proposed alternative method will at all
times guarantee no less than the same
measure of protection to the miners as
would be provided by the existing
standard.
Docket Number: M–2008–005–C.
Petitioner: Bear Gap Coal Company,
74 Kushwa Road, Spring Glen,
Pennsylvania 17978.
Mine: N & L Slope Mine, MSHA I.D.
No. 36–02203, located in
Northumberland 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 when the fan is idle; (3) no
electric power circuits will be energized
when the fan is idle; (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 slope gunboat may be used to make
the required per-shift examination; (6)
the communication circuit 9-volts will
be energized prior to the pre-shift being
made; (7) a certified person will conduct
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:39 Mar 07, 2008
Jkt 214001
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 repeated
testing of methane concentrations have
shown that concentration levels at no
time have risen above 0.0 percent. The
petitioner asserts that the proposed
alternative method will in no way
would provide less than the same
measure of protection afforded the
miners under the existing standard.
Dated: March 4, 2008.
Jack Powasnik,
Deputy Director, Office of Standards,
Regulations, and Variances.
[FR Doc. E8–4758 Filed 3–7–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–43–P
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Advisory Committee for Environmental
Research and Education; Notice of
Meeting
In accordance with the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–
463, as amended), the National Science
Foundation announces the following
meeting:
Name: Advisory Committee for
Environmental Research and Education
(9487).
Dates: April 9, 2008, 9 a.m.–5 p.m.; April
10, 2008, 9 a.m.–1 p.m.
Place: Stafford I, Room 1235, National
Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd.,
Arlington, Virginia 22230.
Type of Meeting: Open.
Contact Person: Alan Tessier, National
Science Foundation, Suite 635, 4201 Wilson
Blvd., Arlington, Virginia 22230. Phone 703–
292–7198.
Minutes: May be obtained from the contact
person listed above.
Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice,
recommendations, and oversight concerning
support for environmental research and
education.
Agenda:
April 9
Introduction of New Members.
Update on recent NSF environmental
activities.
Discussion of Sustainability Science.
Break Out Groups.
April 10
Meeting with the Director (or
Representative).
Discussion of Future AC/ERE activities.
Susanne Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E8–4618 Filed 3–7–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Submission for the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)
Review; Comment Request
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC).
ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of
information collection and solicitation
of public comment.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The NRC has recently
submitted to OMB for review the
following proposal for the collection of
information under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC hereby
informs potential respondents that an
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
that a person is not required to respond
to, a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
1. Type of submission, new, revision,
or extension: Revision.
2. The title of the information
collection:
NUREG/BR–0238, Materials Annual Fee
Billing Handbook.
NRC Form 628, ‘‘Financial EDI
Authorization.’’
NUREG/BR–0254, Payment Methods.
NRC Form 629, ‘‘Authorization for
Payment by Credit Card.’’
3. The form numbers if applicable:
NRC Form 628 and NRC Form 629.
4. How often the collection is
required: Annually.
5. Who will be required or asked to
report: Anyone conducting business
with the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission including licensees,
applicants and individuals who are
required to pay a fee for inspections and
licenses.
6. An estimate of the number of
annual responses: 466 (10 for NRC Form
628 and 456 for NRC Form 629 and
NUREG/BR–0254).
7. The estimated number of annual
respondents: 466 (10 for NRC Form 628
and 456 for NRC Form 629 and NUREG/
BR–0254).
8. An estimate of the total number of
hours needed annually to complete the
requirement or request: 38 (.8 hour for
NRC Form 628 and 37 hours for NRC
Form 629 and NUREG/BR–0254).
9. An indication of whether section
3507(d), Public Law 104–13 applies:
N/A.
10. Abstract: The U.S. Department of
the Treasury encourages the public to
pay monies owed the government
through use of the Automated
Clearinghouse Network and credit
E:\FR\FM\10MRN1.SGM
10MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 47 (Monday, March 10, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12774-12776]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-4758]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 April 9, 2008.
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,
[[Page 12775]]
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: Jack Powasnik, Deputy Director, Office
of Standards, Regulations, and Variances at 202-693-9443 (Voice),
powasnik.jack@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-2008-002-C.
Petitioner: Blue Diamond Coal Company, P.O. Box 47, Slemp, Kentucky
41763.
Mine: Mine 75, MSHA I.D. No. 15-17478, located in Perry
County, Kentucky.
Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.364(b)(2) (Weekly examination).
Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of the
existing standard to permit check points (examination points) to be
established in twelve locations of the Parallel Owens Branch Return
Main due to water accumulations in these areas that prevent foot
travel. The petitioner proposes to establish examination points at
certain points to evaluate airflow entering the Parallel Owens Branch
Return Main and exiting Parallel Owens Branch Return Main. The
petitioner also proposes to establish ventilation check points between
certain breaks of the Parallel Owens Branch Return Main. The petitioner
states that due to poor roof conditions and water accumulations and the
distance from active works, it is impractical to expose personnel to
traveling the affected area. The petitioner further states that no
lesser degree of safety is ensured by traveling to both ends of the
mains and verifying adequate air volume and quality at the evaluation
points and check points. The petitioner asserts that the proposed
alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same
measure of protection afforded by the existing standard.
Docket Number: M-2008-003-C.
Petitioner: Brooks Run Mining Company, LLC, 208 Business Street,
Beckley, West Virginia 25801.
Mine: Wyoming No. 1 Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 46-09213 located in Wyoming
County, West Virginia; and War Branch No. 1 Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 46-
09055 and Cucumber Slope Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 46-09066 located in
McDowell County, West Virginia.
Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1101-1(b) (Deluge-type water spray
systems).
Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of the
existing standard to allow the deluge-type water spray to function
without blow-off dust covers on the system nozzles. The petitioner
proposes to conduct weekly inspection and functional testing of its
complete deluge-type water spray system and remove blow-off dust cover
from the nozzles. The petitioner asserts that application of the
existing standard will at all times guarantee no less than the same
measure of protection afforded the miners employed by the existing
standard.
Docket Number: M-2008-004-C.
Petitioner: The American Coal Company, P.O. Box 727, Harrisburg,
Illinois 62946.
Mine: Galatia Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 11-02752, located in Saline
County, Illinois.
Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.503 (Permissible electric face
equipment; maintenance) and 30 CFR 18.35(a)(5)(i), (ii) (Portable
(trailing) cables and cords).
Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of the
existing standard to increase the maximum length of cables supplying
power to permissible equipment used in continuous mining sections. The
petitioner states that: (1) This petition will only apply to trailing
cables supplying three-phase, 995-volt power to continuous mining
machines and trailing cables supplying three-phase, 480-volt power to
roof bolters; (2) the maximum length of the 995-volt continuous mining
machine trailing cables will be 950 feet and the maximum length of the
480-volt trailing cables for roof bolters will be 900 feet; (3) 995-
volt continuous mining machine trailing cables will not be smaller than
2/0 and the 480-volt trailing cables for roof bolters will not be
smaller than 2 American Wire Gauge (AWG); (4) all circuit
breakers used to protect 2/0 trailing cables exceeding 850 feet in
length will have instantaneous trip units calibrated to trip at 1,500
amperes and the trip setting will be sealed or locked and will have
permanent legible permanent labels that will be maintained as legible
to identify the circuit breaker as being suitable for protecting 2/0
cables; (5) replacement instantaneous trip units, used to protect 2/0
trailing cables, will be calibrated to trip at 1,500 amperes and the
setting will be sealed or locked; (6) all circuit breakers used to
protect 2 AWG trailing cables exceeding 700 feet in length
will have instantaneous trip units calibrated to trip at 700 amperes,
the trip setting will be sealed or locked, and the circuit breakers
will have permanent legible labels that will be maintained as legible
to identify the circuit breakers as being suitable for protecting
2 AWG cables; (7) replacement instantaneous trip units used to
protect 2 AWG trailing cables will be calibrated to trip at
700 amperes and the setting will be sealed or locked; (8) the
designated operator will visually examine the trailing cables during
each production day to ensure that the cables are operating safely and
the instantaneous settings of the calibrated breakers do not have seals
or locks removed and do not exceed the stipulated settings; and (9) any
trailing cable that is not in safe operating condition will be removed
from service immediately and repaired or replaced; (10) each splice or
repair in the trailing cables will be made in a workmanlike manner and
in accordance with the instructions of the manufacturer of the splice
or repair materials and will comply with 30 CFR 75.603 and 75.604; (11)
permanent warning labels will be installed and maintained on the
cover(s) of the power center identifying the location of each sealed or
locked short-circuit protection device to warn the miners not to change
or alter the short-circuit settings. Persons may review a complete
description of petitioner's alternative
[[Page 12776]]
method and procedures at the MSHA address listed in the notice. The
petitioner states that the alternative method will not be implemented
until miners designated to examine the integrity of the seals or locks
verify the short-circuit settings, and proper procedures training have
been provided for examining trailing cables for defects and damage. The
training for the miners will include the following elements: (1)
Training in mining methods and operating procedures for protecting the
trailing cables against damage; (2) training in the proper procedures
for examining the trailing cables to ensure safe operating conditions;
(3) training in the hazards of setting the instantaneous circuit
breakers too high to adequately protect the trailing cables; and (4)
training on how to verify that interrupting device(s) protecting the
trailing cable(s) are properly set and maintained. The petitioner
further state that within 60 days after the petition is granted,
revisions to the Part 48 training plan will be submitted to the
District Manager for the area in which the mine is located. The
petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all
times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection to the
miners as would be provided by the existing standard.
Docket Number: M-2008-005-C.
Petitioner: Bear Gap Coal Company, 74 Kushwa Road, Spring Glen,
Pennsylvania 17978.
Mine: N & L Slope Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 36-02203, located in
Northumberland 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 when the fan is idle; (3) no electric power circuits will
be energized when the fan is idle; (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 slope gunboat may be used
to make the required per-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 repeated testing of methane concentrations have
shown that concentration levels at no time have risen above 0.0
percent. The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method
will in no way would provide less than the same measure of protection
afforded the miners under the existing standard.
Dated: March 4, 2008.
Jack Powasnik,
Deputy Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances.
[FR Doc. E8-4758 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-43-P
