Lowering Miners' Exposure to Respirable Coal Mine Dust, Including Continuous Personal Dust Monitors, 12648-12651 [2011-5127]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
12648
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Agency Proposing Release, it was
mindful of its prior proposals under
Regulation MC.21 However, the
Commission recognizes that
commenters who provided their views
and suggestions on proposed Regulation
MC did not have the benefit of
considering the proposals in the SB SEF
Proposing Release and the Clearing
Agency Proposing Release, which also
seek to address some potential conflicts
of interest affecting these entities, when
they submitted their comments.
The Commission therefore is
reopening the comment period to invite
further comment on proposed
Regulation MC, particularly in light of
the additional proposals relating to
mitigation of conflicts for security-based
swap clearing agencies and SB SEFs that
are contained in the Clearing Agency
Proposing Release and SB SEF
Proposing Release, respectively.
II. Request for Comment
Commenters are asked to consider the
provisions designed to address conflicts
of interest in the Regulation MC
Proposing Release and in the Clearing
Agency Proposing Release and the SB
SEF Proposing Release, in the aggregate,
when providing further comment on
how the Commission should address
potential conflicts of interest at securitybased swap clearing agencies and SB
SEFS, respectively. Are some or all of
the proposed requirements in the SB
SEF Proposing Release and the Clearing
Agency Proposing Release and the
requirements in the Regulation MC
Proposing Release mutually supportive?
Why or why not? Should any of the
proposed requirements discussed in the
SB SEF Proposing Release, the Clearing
Agency Proposing Release, or the
Regulation MC Proposing Release
relating to conflicts of interest be
revised in light of the proposed
requirements relating to conflicts of
interests in the other releases? If so,
which requirements should be revised
and how? Are the proposed
requirements discussed in the SB SEF
Proposing Release, the Clearing Agency
Proposing Release, or the Regulation MC
Proposing Release relating to conflicts of
interest, when considered together,
sufficient to mitigate conflicts of interest
for SB SEFs, SBS exchanges or securitybased swap clearing agencies, or should
the Commission consider additional, or
alternative, measures? Are any of the
proposed requirements discussed in the
21 See SB SEF Proposing Release, supra note 12,
at notes 82, 97, 127, 128, 134, 139, 141, 147, 172,
208, 269 and 570 and accompanying text, and 76
FR at 10979 and 10983–10986. See also Clearing
Agency Proposing Release, supra note 15, at notes
45 and 107 and accompanying text.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:07 Mar 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
SB SEF Proposing Release, the Clearing
Agency Proposing Release, or the
Regulation MC Proposing Release
relating to conflicts of interest
unnecessary in light of proposed
requirements relating to conflicts of
interest in the other releases? Why or
why not?
Comments may provide the
Commission with further insights
regarding what mechanisms, if any, may
be necessary or appropriate to mitigate
conflicts of interest and how the
proposed requirements in the three
proposals should be evaluated.
Commenters should provide specific
reasons and information to support their
views and recommendations, including
an analysis of why a recommendation
would satisfy the statutory mandate
contained in Section 765 of the DoddFrank Act regarding mitigation of
conflicts of interest. The Commission
asks that commenters, when possible,
provide the Commission with empirical
data to support their views.
By the Commission.
Dated: March 3, 2011.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011–5183 Filed 3–7–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration
30 CFR Parts 70, 71, 72, 75, and 90
RIN 1219–AB64
Lowering Miners’ Exposure to
Respirable Coal Mine Dust, Including
Continuous Personal Dust Monitors
Mine Safety and Health
Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comment.
AGENCY:
The Mine Safety and Health
Administration (MSHA) is requesting
comments on the proposed rule
published in the Federal Register on
October 19, 2010, addressing Lowering
Miners’ Exposure to Respirable Coal
Mine Dust, Including Continuous
Personal Dust Monitors. The proposed
rule would improve health protections
for coal miners by reducing their
occupational exposure to respirable coal
mine dust and lowering the risk that
they will suffer material impairment of
health or functional capacity over their
working lives.
DATES: All comments must be received
or postmarked by midnight Eastern
Daylight Saving Time on May 2, 2011.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Comments must be
identified with ‘‘RIN 1219–AB64’’ and
may be sent by any of the following
methods:
(1) Federal e-Rulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
(2) Electronic mail: zzMSHAcomments@dol.gov. Include ‘‘RIN 1219–
AB64’’ in the subject line of the message.
(3) Facsimile: 202–693–9441. Include
‘‘RIN 1219–AB64’’ in the subject line of
the message.
(4) Regular Mail: MSHA, Office of
Standards, Regulations, and Variances,
1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350,
Arlington, Virginia 22209–3939.
(5) Hand Delivery or Courier: MSHA,
Office of Standards, Regulations, and
Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard,
Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia. Sign in
at the receptionist’s desk on the 21st
floor.
MSHA will post all comments on the
Internet without change, including any
personal information provided.
Comments can be accessed
electronically at https://www.msha.gov
under the ‘‘Rules & Regs’’ link.
Comments may also be reviewed in
person at the Office of Standards,
Regulations, and Variances, 1100
Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350,
Arlington, Virginia. Sign in at the
receptionist’s desk on the 21st floor.
MSHA will accept written comments
and other appropriate information for
the record from any interested party. All
comments must be received or
postmarked by midnight Eastern
Daylight Saving Time on May 2, 2011.
MSHA maintains a list that enables
subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when the Agency publishes rulemaking
documents in the Federal Register. To
subscribe, go to https://www.msha.gov/
subscriptions/subscribe.aspx.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
April E. Nelson, Acting Director, Office
of Standards, Regulations, and
Variances, MSHA, at
nelson.april@dol.gov (e-mail); 202–693–
9440 (voice); or 202–693–9441
(facsimile).
ADDRESSES:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Public Hearings
On October 19, 2010 (75 FR 64412),
MSHA published a proposed rule,
Lowering Miners’ Exposure to
Respirable Coal Mine Dust, Including
Continuous Personal Dust Monitors. On
February 15, 2011, MSHA concluded
the last of seven public hearings on the
proposed rule. Hearings were held on
December 7, 2010, January 11, 13, and
25, 2011, and February 8, 10, and 15,
2011, in Beckley, West Virginia;
E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM
08MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Evansville, Indiana; Birmingham,
Alabama; Salt Lake City, Utah;
Washington, PA; Prestonsburg,
Kentucky; and Arlington, VA. Verbatim
transcripts of the hearings will be part
of the rulemaking record. Transcripts
will be available to the public on
MSHA’s Web site at https://
www.msha.gov under the ‘‘Rules & Regs’’
link.
II. Request for Comments
The key provisions of the proposed
rule would lower the existing
concentration limits for respirable coal
mine dust, provide for full-shift
sampling, redefine the term ‘‘normal
production shift,’’ provide for use of
single shift compliance sampling under
the mine operator and MSHA’s
inspector sampling programs, establish
sampling requirements for use of the
Continuous Personal Dust Monitor
(CPDM), and expand requirements for
medical surveillance. The proposed rule
is available on MSHA’s Web site at
https://www.msha.gov/REGS/FEDREG/
PROPOSED/2010Prop/2010-25249.pdf.
In developing the proposed rule,
MSHA relied on the NIOSH Criteria
Document (Criteria for a Recommended
Standard: Occupational Exposure to
Respirable Coal Mine Dust (September
1995)), the Secretary of Labor’s
Advisory Committee (Report of the
Secretary of Labor’s Advisory
Committee on the Elimination of
Pneumoconiosis Among Coal Mine
Workers (October 1996)), MSHA’S
Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA),
studies in the Health Effects section of
the proposed rule, and information and
data included in the Preliminary
Regulatory Economic Analysis (PREA)
in support of the proposal.
MSHA solicits comments on all
aspects of the proposed rule and
encourages the mining community to
review the proposal, including the
preamble to the proposed rule, the QRA,
and the PREA. The QRA and the PREA
are available on MSHA’s Web site at
https://www.msha.gov/regsqra.asp and
https://www.msha.gov/rea.htm,
respectively.
As MSHA has stated throughout the
rulemaking, the Agency is interested in
information on (1) requests for
comments and information that were
included in the preamble to the
proposed rule, and (2) issues that
developed from the proposed rule
which were raised during the public
hearings. The Agency requests that
comments and any alternatives
suggested be as specific as possible, and
include any technological and economic
feasibility data, detailed rationale and
supporting documentation, and health
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:07 Mar 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
benefits to coal miners. Specific and
complete information submitted by
commenters will enable MSHA to better
evaluate the provisions of the proposed
rule and produce a final rule that
responds to the needs and concerns of
the mining community.
1. The proposed rule presents an
integrated comprehensive approach for
lowering miners’ exposure to respirable
coal mine dust. The Agency is
interested in alternatives to the proposal
which would be effective in reducing
miners’ respirable dust exposure and
invites comments on any alternatives.
2. MSHA solicits comments on the
proposed respirable dust concentration
limits. Please provide alternatives to the
proposed limits to be considered in
developing the final rule, including
specific suggested limits and your
rationale.
3. The proposed rule bases the
proposed respirable dust standards on
an 8-hour work shift and a 40-hour
workweek. In its 1995 Criteria
Document on Occupational Exposure to
Respirable Coal Mine Dust, the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH) recommended lowering
exposure to 1.0 mg/m3 for each miner
for up to a 10-hour work shift during a
40-hour workweek. MSHA solicits
comments on the NIOSH
recommendation.
4. MSHA included the proposed
phase-in periods for the proposed lower
respirable dust standards to provide
sufficient time for mine operators to
implement or upgrade engineering or
environmental controls. MSHA solicits
comments on alternative timeframes
and factors that the Agency should
consider. Please include any
information and detailed rationale.
5. In the proposal, MSHA also plans
to phase in the use of Continuous
Personal Dust Monitors (CPDMs) to
sample production areas of
underground mines and Part 90 miners.
MSHA solicits comments on the
proposed phasing in of CPDMs,
including time periods and any
information with respect to their
availability. If shorter or longer
timeframes are recommended, please
provide the rationale.
6. MSHA has received a number of
comments about the use of the CPDM.
For operators who have used this
device, MSHA is interested in receiving
information related to its use. For
example, MSHA is interested in
information related to the durability of
the unit, whether and how often the
unit had to be repaired, type of repair,
cost of repair, whether the repair was
covered under warranty, how long the
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
12649
unit was unavailable, and any
additional relevant information.
7. MSHA understands that some work
shifts are longer than 12 hours, and that
dust sampling devices generally last for
approximately 12 hours. MSHA solicits
comments on appropriate timeframes to
switch out sampling devices, Coal Mine
Dust Personal Sampler Units
(CMDPSUs, i.e., gravimetric samplers)
or CPDMs, to ensure continued
operation and uninterrupted protection
for miners for the entire shift.
8. The proposed single sample
provision is based on improvements in
sampling technology, MSHA
experience, updated data, and
comments and testimony from earlier
notices and proposals that addressed the
accuracy of single sample
measurements. The Agency is
particularly interested in comments on
new information added to the record
since October 2003 concerning MSHA’s
Quantitative Risk Assessment,
technological and economic feasibility,
compliance costs, and benefits.
9. MSHA is interested in commenters’
views on what actions should be taken
by MSHA and the mine operator when
a single shift respirable dust sample
meets or exceeds the Excessive
Concentration Value (ECV). In this
situation, if operators use a CPDM, what
alternative actions to those contained in
the proposed rule would you suggest
that MSHA and the operator take?
MSHA is particularly interested in
alternatives to those in the proposal and
how such alternatives would be
protective of miners.
10. A commenter at a public hearing
requested clarification on whether there
would be more than one violation of the
respirable dust limit if a single, full-shift
sample exceeded the ECV during the
same week that the weekly permissible
accumulated exposure (WPAE) limit
were exceeded. Under the proposed
rule, it would be a violation for each
occurrence that the ECV or WPAE is
exceeded. MSHA is interested in
comments and alternatives to the
proposed rule. Comments should be
specific, and include a detailed
rationale and how any
recommendations and alternatives
would protect miners.
11. The proposal includes a revised
definition of normal production shift so
that sampling is taken during shifts that
reasonably represent typical production
and normal mining conditions on the
MMU. The Agency requests comments
on whether the average of the most
recent 30 production shifts specified in
the proposed definition would be
representative of dust levels to which
miners are typically exposed.
E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM
08MRP1
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
12650
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
12. The proposed sampling provisions
address interim use of supplementary
controls when all feasible engineering or
environmental controls have been used
but the mine operator is unable to
maintain compliance with the dust
standard. With MSHA approval,
operators could use supplementary
controls, such as rotation of miners, or
alteration of mining or of production
schedules, in conjunction with CPDMs
to monitor miners’ exposures. MSHA
solicits comments on this proposed
approach and any suggested
alternatives, as well as the types of
supplementary controls that would be
appropriate to use on a short-term basis.
13. The proposed rule addresses (1)
which occupations must be sampled
using CPDMs, and (2) which work
positions and areas could be sampled
using either CPDMs or CMDPSUs.
MSHA solicits comments on the
proposed sampling occupations and
locations. For example, please comment
on whether there are other positions or
areas where it may be appropriate to
require the use of CPDMs. Also,
comment on whether the proposed
CPDM sampling of ODOs on the MMU
is sufficient to address different mining
techniques, potential overexposures,
and ineffective use of approved dust
controls.
14. Some commenters have suggested
that, for compliance purposes,
respirable dust samples should be taken
only on individual miners in
underground coal mines. Under the
existing rule, MSHA enforces an
environmental standard, that is, the
Agency samples the average
concentration of respirable dust in the
mine atmosphere. The proposed rule
would continue the existing practice
that samples be collected from
designated high-risk occupations
associated with respirable dust exposure
and from designated areas associated
with dust generation sources in
underground mines. MSHA solicits
comments on the sampling strategy in
the proposed rule, any specific
alternatives, supporting rationale, and
how such alternatives would protect
miners’ health.
15. The proposed rule addresses the
frequency of respirable dust sampling
when using a CPDM. MSHA solicits
comments on the proposed sampling
frequencies and any suggested
alternatives. For example, if sampling of
DOs were less frequent than proposed,
what alternative sampling frequency
would be appropriate? Please address a
sampling strategy in case of
noncompliance with the respirable dust
standard and provide rationale. Also,
should CPDM sampling of ODOs be
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:07 Mar 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
more or less frequent than 14 calendar
days each quarter? Please be specific in
suggesting alternatives and include
supporting rationale.
16. The proposal would require that
persons certified in dust sampling or
maintenance and calibration retake the
applicable MSHA examination every 3
years to maintain certification. Under
the proposal, these certified persons
would not have to retake the proposed
MSHA course of instruction. MSHA
solicits comments on this approach to
certification; please include specific
rationale for any suggested alternatives.
17. In the proposal, MSHA would
require that the CPDM daily sample and
error data file information be submitted
electronically to the Agency on a weekly
basis. MSHA solicits comments on
suggested alternative timeframes,
particularly in light of the CPDM’s
limited memory capacity of about 20
shifts.
18. The proposal contains
requirements for posting information on
sampling results and miners’ exposures
on the mine bulletin board. MSHA
solicits comments on the lengths of time
proposed for posting data. If a standard
format for reporting and posting data
were developed, what should it
include?
19. The periodic medical surveillance
provisions in the proposed rule would
require operators to provide an initial
examination to each miner who begins
work at a coal mine for the first time
and then at least one follow-up
examination after the initial
examination. MSHA solicits comments
on the proposed requirements and time
periods specified for these
examinations.
20. The proposed respirator training
requirements are performance-based
and the time required for respirator
training would be in addition to that
required under part 48. Under the
proposal, mine operators could,
however, integrate respirator training
into their part 48 training schedules.
The proposal would require that
operators keep records of training for 2
years. Please comment on the Agency’s
proposed approach.
21. The proposed rule specifies
procedures and information to be
included in CPDM plans to ensure
miners are not exposed to respirable
dust concentrations that exceed
proposed standards. For example, the
proposed plan would include preoperational examination, testing and
set-up procedures to verify the
operational readiness of the CPDM
before each shift. It would also include
procedures for scheduled maintenance,
downloading and transmission of
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
sampling information, and posting of
reported results. Please comment on the
proposed plan provisions and include
supporting rationale.
22. MSHA has received comments
that some aspects of the proposed rule
may not be feasible for particular
mining applications. MSHA is
interested in receiving comments on the
specific mining methods that may be
impacted and alternative technologies
and controls that would protect miners.
23. MSHA has received comments on
proposed section 75.332(a)(1)
concerning the use of ‘‘fishtail’’
ventilation to provide intake air to
multiple MMUs. Commenters were
concerned that, under the proposed
rule, the practice of using fishtail
ventilation with temporary ventilation
controls would not be allowed. MSHA
solicits comments on any specific
impact of the proposed rule on current
mining operations, any suggested
alternatives, and how the alternatives
would be protective of miners.
24. The Agency has prepared a PREA,
which contains supporting cost and
benefit data for the proposed rule.
MSHA has included a discussion of the
costs and benefits in the preamble.
MSHA requests comments on all
estimates of costs and benefits presented
in the preamble and the PREA,
including compliance costs, net
benefits, and approaches used and
assumptions made in the PREA. The
PREA is available on MSHA’s Web site
at https://www.msha.gov/rea.htm.
25. Commenters have discussed
epidemiological studies and data on
coal mine dust exposure presented in
the preamble to the proposed rule.
MSHA solicits comments regarding
studies and data, and requests that
commenters be as specific as possible.
Please identify the studies and data
commented upon, provide detailed
rationales for the comments, and
include any relevant information and
data that will help MSHA evaluate the
comments.
26. MSHA has received comments
that the proposed rule should not
require mine operators to record
corrective actions or excessive dust
concentrations as section 75.363
hazardous conditions. MSHA would
like to clarify that the proposal would
require that operators record both
excessive dust concentrations and
corrective actions in the same manner as
conditions are recorded under section
75.363. However, MSHA would not
consider excessive dust concentrations
or corrective actions to be hazardous
conditions, since the proposed
requirement is not a section 75.363
required record.
E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM
08MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
12651
• Mail: Keith Rose, EPA Region 10,
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT–
107, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900,
Seattle, WA 98101.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region
10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900,
Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Keith
Rose, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics,
AWT–107. Such deliveries are only
accepted during normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2011–
0035. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA, without going through https://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available (e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute). Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically at https://
Continued
27. A commenter at the first public
hearing suggested that the timeframe for
miners’ review of the CPDM
Performance Plan be expanded. For
clarification, in developing the
proposed rule, MSHA relied on the
timeframe and process in the existing
requirements for mine ventilation plans.
In the proposal, MSHA did not intend
to change the existing timeframe and
process and stated that the proposed
rule is consistent with ventilation plan
requirements and would allow miners’
representatives the opportunity to
meaningfully participate in the process.
Dated: March 2, 2011.
Joseph A. Main,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety
and Health.
[FR Doc. 2011–5127 Filed 3–7–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–43–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R10–OAR–2011–0035, FRL–9276–6]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; State of
Oregon; Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision, submitted by the State of
Oregon on December 20, 2010, with
supplemental information submitted
February 1, 2011, as meeting the
requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA)
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it applies to
visibility for the 1997 8-hour ozone and
1997 particulate matter (PM2.5) National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). EPA is also proposing to
approve a portion of the SIP submittal,
as meeting certain requirements of the
regional haze program, including the
Federal regulations for best available
retrofit technology (BART).
DATES: Written comments must be
received at the address below on or
before April 7, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10–
OAR–2011–0035, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: Keith Rose at R10Public_Comments@epa.gov.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:07 Mar 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA
Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,
WA 98101. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the individual
listed below to view the hard copy of
the docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Keith Rose at telephone number (206)
553–1949, rose.keith@epa.gov or the
above EPA, Region 10 address.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean the
EPA. Information is organized as
follows:
Table of Contents
I. Background for EPA’s Proposed Action
A. Definition of Regional Haze
B. Regional Haze Rules and Regulations
C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing
Regional Haze
D. Interstate Transport for Visibility
II. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs
A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and
Current Visibility Conditions
C. Consultation With States and Federal
Land Managers
D. Best Available Retrofit Technology
III. EPA’s Analysis of Oregon’s Regional Haze
SIP
A. Affected Class I Areas
B. Baseline and Natural Conditions and
Uniform Rate of Progress
C. Oregon Emissions Inventories
D. Sources of Visibility Impairment in
Oregon Class I Areas
E. Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART)
IV. EPA’s Analysis of Oregon’s Regional Haze
Rules
V. EPA’s Analysis of Whether the Oregon
Regional Haze SIP Submittal Meets
Interstate Transport Requirements
VI. What action is EPA proposing?
VII. Oregon Notice Provision
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background for EPA’s Proposed
Action
In the CAA Amendments of 1977,
Congress established a program to
protect and improve visibility in the
national parks and wilderness areas. See
CAA section 169(A). Congress amended
the visibility provisions in the CAA in
1990 to focus attention on the problem
of regional haze. See CAA section
169(B). EPA promulgated regulations in
1999 to implement sections 169A and
169B of the Act. These regulations
require States to develop and implement
plans to ensure reasonable progress
toward improving visibility in
mandatory Class I Federal areas 1 (Class
1 Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal
areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000
acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks
E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM
08MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 8, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12648-12651]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5127]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration
30 CFR Parts 70, 71, 72, 75, and 90
RIN 1219-AB64
Lowering Miners' Exposure to Respirable Coal Mine Dust, Including
Continuous Personal Dust Monitors
AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is requesting
comments on the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on
October 19, 2010, addressing Lowering Miners' Exposure to Respirable
Coal Mine Dust, Including Continuous Personal Dust Monitors. The
proposed rule would improve health protections for coal miners by
reducing their occupational exposure to respirable coal mine dust and
lowering the risk that they will suffer material impairment of health
or functional capacity over their working lives.
DATES: All comments must be received or postmarked by midnight Eastern
Daylight Saving Time on May 2, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Comments must be identified with ``RIN 1219-AB64'' and may
be sent by any of the following methods:
(1) Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
(2) Electronic mail: zzMSHA-comments@dol.gov. Include ``RIN 1219-
AB64'' in the subject line of the message.
(3) Facsimile: 202-693-9441. Include ``RIN 1219-AB64'' in the
subject line of the message.
(4) Regular Mail: MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and
Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia 22209-
3939.
(5) Hand Delivery or Courier: MSHA, Office of Standards,
Regulations, and Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350,
Arlington, Virginia. Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the 21st
floor.
MSHA will post all comments on the Internet without change,
including any personal information provided. Comments can be accessed
electronically at https://www.msha.gov under the ``Rules & Regs'' link.
Comments may also be reviewed in person at the Office of Standards,
Regulations, and Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350,
Arlington, Virginia. Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the 21st
floor.
MSHA will accept written comments and other appropriate information
for the record from any interested party. All comments must be received
or postmarked by midnight Eastern Daylight Saving Time on May 2, 2011.
MSHA maintains a list that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when the Agency publishes rulemaking documents in the
Federal Register. To subscribe, go to https://www.msha.gov/subscriptions/subscribe.aspx.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: April E. Nelson, Acting Director,
Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at
nelson.april@dol.gov (e-mail); 202-693-9440 (voice); or 202-693-9441
(facsimile).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Public Hearings
On October 19, 2010 (75 FR 64412), MSHA published a proposed rule,
Lowering Miners' Exposure to Respirable Coal Mine Dust, Including
Continuous Personal Dust Monitors. On February 15, 2011, MSHA concluded
the last of seven public hearings on the proposed rule. Hearings were
held on December 7, 2010, January 11, 13, and 25, 2011, and February 8,
10, and 15, 2011, in Beckley, West Virginia;
[[Page 12649]]
Evansville, Indiana; Birmingham, Alabama; Salt Lake City, Utah;
Washington, PA; Prestonsburg, Kentucky; and Arlington, VA. Verbatim
transcripts of the hearings will be part of the rulemaking record.
Transcripts will be available to the public on MSHA's Web site at
https://www.msha.gov under the ``Rules & Regs'' link.
II. Request for Comments
The key provisions of the proposed rule would lower the existing
concentration limits for respirable coal mine dust, provide for full-
shift sampling, redefine the term ``normal production shift,'' provide
for use of single shift compliance sampling under the mine operator and
MSHA's inspector sampling programs, establish sampling requirements for
use of the Continuous Personal Dust Monitor (CPDM), and expand
requirements for medical surveillance. The proposed rule is available
on MSHA's Web site at https://www.msha.gov/REGS/FEDREG/PROPOSED/2010Prop/2010-25249.pdf.
In developing the proposed rule, MSHA relied on the NIOSH Criteria
Document (Criteria for a Recommended Standard: Occupational Exposure to
Respirable Coal Mine Dust (September 1995)), the Secretary of Labor's
Advisory Committee (Report of the Secretary of Labor's Advisory
Committee on the Elimination of Pneumoconiosis Among Coal Mine Workers
(October 1996)), MSHA'S Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA), studies in
the Health Effects section of the proposed rule, and information and
data included in the Preliminary Regulatory Economic Analysis (PREA) in
support of the proposal.
MSHA solicits comments on all aspects of the proposed rule and
encourages the mining community to review the proposal, including the
preamble to the proposed rule, the QRA, and the PREA. The QRA and the
PREA are available on MSHA's Web site at https://www.msha.gov/regsqra.asp and https://www.msha.gov/rea.htm, respectively.
As MSHA has stated throughout the rulemaking, the Agency is
interested in information on (1) requests for comments and information
that were included in the preamble to the proposed rule, and (2) issues
that developed from the proposed rule which were raised during the
public hearings. The Agency requests that comments and any alternatives
suggested be as specific as possible, and include any technological and
economic feasibility data, detailed rationale and supporting
documentation, and health benefits to coal miners. Specific and
complete information submitted by commenters will enable MSHA to better
evaluate the provisions of the proposed rule and produce a final rule
that responds to the needs and concerns of the mining community.
1. The proposed rule presents an integrated comprehensive approach
for lowering miners' exposure to respirable coal mine dust. The Agency
is interested in alternatives to the proposal which would be effective
in reducing miners' respirable dust exposure and invites comments on
any alternatives.
2. MSHA solicits comments on the proposed respirable dust
concentration limits. Please provide alternatives to the proposed
limits to be considered in developing the final rule, including
specific suggested limits and your rationale.
3. The proposed rule bases the proposed respirable dust standards
on an 8-hour work shift and a 40-hour workweek. In its 1995 Criteria
Document on Occupational Exposure to Respirable Coal Mine Dust, the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
recommended lowering exposure to 1.0 mg/m\3\ for each miner for up to a
10-hour work shift during a 40-hour workweek. MSHA solicits comments on
the NIOSH recommendation.
4. MSHA included the proposed phase-in periods for the proposed
lower respirable dust standards to provide sufficient time for mine
operators to implement or upgrade engineering or environmental
controls. MSHA solicits comments on alternative timeframes and factors
that the Agency should consider. Please include any information and
detailed rationale.
5. In the proposal, MSHA also plans to phase in the use of
Continuous Personal Dust Monitors (CPDMs) to sample production areas of
underground mines and Part 90 miners. MSHA solicits comments on the
proposed phasing in of CPDMs, including time periods and any
information with respect to their availability. If shorter or longer
timeframes are recommended, please provide the rationale.
6. MSHA has received a number of comments about the use of the
CPDM. For operators who have used this device, MSHA is interested in
receiving information related to its use. For example, MSHA is
interested in information related to the durability of the unit,
whether and how often the unit had to be repaired, type of repair, cost
of repair, whether the repair was covered under warranty, how long the
unit was unavailable, and any additional relevant information.
7. MSHA understands that some work shifts are longer than 12 hours,
and that dust sampling devices generally last for approximately 12
hours. MSHA solicits comments on appropriate timeframes to switch out
sampling devices, Coal Mine Dust Personal Sampler Units (CMDPSUs, i.e.,
gravimetric samplers) or CPDMs, to ensure continued operation and
uninterrupted protection for miners for the entire shift.
8. The proposed single sample provision is based on improvements in
sampling technology, MSHA experience, updated data, and comments and
testimony from earlier notices and proposals that addressed the
accuracy of single sample measurements. The Agency is particularly
interested in comments on new information added to the record since
October 2003 concerning MSHA's Quantitative Risk Assessment,
technological and economic feasibility, compliance costs, and benefits.
9. MSHA is interested in commenters' views on what actions should
be taken by MSHA and the mine operator when a single shift respirable
dust sample meets or exceeds the Excessive Concentration Value (ECV).
In this situation, if operators use a CPDM, what alternative actions to
those contained in the proposed rule would you suggest that MSHA and
the operator take? MSHA is particularly interested in alternatives to
those in the proposal and how such alternatives would be protective of
miners.
10. A commenter at a public hearing requested clarification on
whether there would be more than one violation of the respirable dust
limit if a single, full-shift sample exceeded the ECV during the same
week that the weekly permissible accumulated exposure (WPAE) limit were
exceeded. Under the proposed rule, it would be a violation for each
occurrence that the ECV or WPAE is exceeded. MSHA is interested in
comments and alternatives to the proposed rule. Comments should be
specific, and include a detailed rationale and how any recommendations
and alternatives would protect miners.
11. The proposal includes a revised definition of normal production
shift so that sampling is taken during shifts that reasonably represent
typical production and normal mining conditions on the MMU. The Agency
requests comments on whether the average of the most recent 30
production shifts specified in the proposed definition would be
representative of dust levels to which miners are typically exposed.
[[Page 12650]]
12. The proposed sampling provisions address interim use of
supplementary controls when all feasible engineering or environmental
controls have been used but the mine operator is unable to maintain
compliance with the dust standard. With MSHA approval, operators could
use supplementary controls, such as rotation of miners, or alteration
of mining or of production schedules, in conjunction with CPDMs to
monitor miners' exposures. MSHA solicits comments on this proposed
approach and any suggested alternatives, as well as the types of
supplementary controls that would be appropriate to use on a short-term
basis.
13. The proposed rule addresses (1) which occupations must be
sampled using CPDMs, and (2) which work positions and areas could be
sampled using either CPDMs or CMDPSUs. MSHA solicits comments on the
proposed sampling occupations and locations. For example, please
comment on whether there are other positions or areas where it may be
appropriate to require the use of CPDMs. Also, comment on whether the
proposed CPDM sampling of ODOs on the MMU is sufficient to address
different mining techniques, potential overexposures, and ineffective
use of approved dust controls.
14. Some commenters have suggested that, for compliance purposes,
respirable dust samples should be taken only on individual miners in
underground coal mines. Under the existing rule, MSHA enforces an
environmental standard, that is, the Agency samples the average
concentration of respirable dust in the mine atmosphere. The proposed
rule would continue the existing practice that samples be collected
from designated high-risk occupations associated with respirable dust
exposure and from designated areas associated with dust generation
sources in underground mines. MSHA solicits comments on the sampling
strategy in the proposed rule, any specific alternatives, supporting
rationale, and how such alternatives would protect miners' health.
15. The proposed rule addresses the frequency of respirable dust
sampling when using a CPDM. MSHA solicits comments on the proposed
sampling frequencies and any suggested alternatives. For example, if
sampling of DOs were less frequent than proposed, what alternative
sampling frequency would be appropriate? Please address a sampling
strategy in case of noncompliance with the respirable dust standard and
provide rationale. Also, should CPDM sampling of ODOs be more or less
frequent than 14 calendar days each quarter? Please be specific in
suggesting alternatives and include supporting rationale.
16. The proposal would require that persons certified in dust
sampling or maintenance and calibration retake the applicable MSHA
examination every 3 years to maintain certification. Under the
proposal, these certified persons would not have to retake the proposed
MSHA course of instruction. MSHA solicits comments on this approach to
certification; please include specific rationale for any suggested
alternatives.
17. In the proposal, MSHA would require that the CPDM daily sample
and error data file information be submitted electronically to the
Agency on a weekly basis. MSHA solicits comments on suggested
alternative timeframes, particularly in light of the CPDM's limited
memory capacity of about 20 shifts.
18. The proposal contains requirements for posting information on
sampling results and miners' exposures on the mine bulletin board. MSHA
solicits comments on the lengths of time proposed for posting data. If
a standard format for reporting and posting data were developed, what
should it include?
19. The periodic medical surveillance provisions in the proposed
rule would require operators to provide an initial examination to each
miner who begins work at a coal mine for the first time and then at
least one follow-up examination after the initial examination. MSHA
solicits comments on the proposed requirements and time periods
specified for these examinations.
20. The proposed respirator training requirements are performance-
based and the time required for respirator training would be in
addition to that required under part 48. Under the proposal, mine
operators could, however, integrate respirator training into their part
48 training schedules. The proposal would require that operators keep
records of training for 2 years. Please comment on the Agency's
proposed approach.
21. The proposed rule specifies procedures and information to be
included in CPDM plans to ensure miners are not exposed to respirable
dust concentrations that exceed proposed standards. For example, the
proposed plan would include pre-operational examination, testing and
set-up procedures to verify the operational readiness of the CPDM
before each shift. It would also include procedures for scheduled
maintenance, downloading and transmission of sampling information, and
posting of reported results. Please comment on the proposed plan
provisions and include supporting rationale.
22. MSHA has received comments that some aspects of the proposed
rule may not be feasible for particular mining applications. MSHA is
interested in receiving comments on the specific mining methods that
may be impacted and alternative technologies and controls that would
protect miners.
23. MSHA has received comments on proposed section 75.332(a)(1)
concerning the use of ``fishtail'' ventilation to provide intake air to
multiple MMUs. Commenters were concerned that, under the proposed rule,
the practice of using fishtail ventilation with temporary ventilation
controls would not be allowed. MSHA solicits comments on any specific
impact of the proposed rule on current mining operations, any suggested
alternatives, and how the alternatives would be protective of miners.
24. The Agency has prepared a PREA, which contains supporting cost
and benefit data for the proposed rule. MSHA has included a discussion
of the costs and benefits in the preamble. MSHA requests comments on
all estimates of costs and benefits presented in the preamble and the
PREA, including compliance costs, net benefits, and approaches used and
assumptions made in the PREA. The PREA is available on MSHA's Web site
at https://www.msha.gov/rea.htm.
25. Commenters have discussed epidemiological studies and data on
coal mine dust exposure presented in the preamble to the proposed rule.
MSHA solicits comments regarding studies and data, and requests that
commenters be as specific as possible. Please identify the studies and
data commented upon, provide detailed rationales for the comments, and
include any relevant information and data that will help MSHA evaluate
the comments.
26. MSHA has received comments that the proposed rule should not
require mine operators to record corrective actions or excessive dust
concentrations as section 75.363 hazardous conditions. MSHA would like
to clarify that the proposal would require that operators record both
excessive dust concentrations and corrective actions in the same manner
as conditions are recorded under section 75.363. However, MSHA would
not consider excessive dust concentrations or corrective actions to be
hazardous conditions, since the proposed requirement is not a section
75.363 required record.
[[Page 12651]]
27. A commenter at the first public hearing suggested that the
timeframe for miners' review of the CPDM Performance Plan be expanded.
For clarification, in developing the proposed rule, MSHA relied on the
timeframe and process in the existing requirements for mine ventilation
plans. In the proposal, MSHA did not intend to change the existing
timeframe and process and stated that the proposed rule is consistent
with ventilation plan requirements and would allow miners'
representatives the opportunity to meaningfully participate in the
process.
Dated: March 2, 2011.
Joseph A. Main,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2011-5127 Filed 3-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-43-P
