Proximity Detection Systems for Continuous Mining Machines in Underground Coal Mines, 54163-54179 [2011-22125]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2011 / Proposed Rules
proposed regulations covering
construction standards for heating,
lighting, and cooling in home-living
(dormitory) situations.
The following items will be on the
agenda:
• Review all suggestions and
feedback from five tribal consultation
sessions and comment period;
• Discuss and reach consensus on all
final recommendations in the reports;
• Finalize language and appearance
of final report;
• Discuss implementation proposals
for all committee recommendations;
• Meet with and share
recommendations with Department of
the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Bureau of Indian Education, and
Congressional Officials; and
• Public comments.
Written comments may be sent to the
Designated Federal Official listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above. All meetings are open to
the public; however, transportation,
lodging, and meals are the responsibility
of the participating public.
Dated: August 24, 2011.
Donald E. Laverdure,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian
Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2011–22302 Filed 8–30–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–W7–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration
30 CFR Part 75
RIN 1219–AB65
Proximity Detection Systems for
Continuous Mining Machines in
Underground Coal Mines
Mine Safety and Health
Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of public
hearings.
AGENCY:
The Mine Safety and Health
Administration (MSHA) is proposing to
require underground coal mine
operators to equip continuous mining
machines (except full-face continuous
mining machines) with proximity
detection systems. Miners working near
continuous mining machines face
pinning, crushing, and striking hazards
that have resulted, and continue to
result, in accidents involving life
threatening injuries and death. The
proposal would strengthen the
protections for miners by reducing the
potential for pinning, crushing, or
striking accidents in underground coal
mines.
Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:28 Aug 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
Comment date: All comments
must be received or postmarked by
midnight Eastern Standard Time on
November 14, 2011.
Compliance dates: See proposed
compliance dates under the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
Hearing dates: Hearings will be held
on October 18, 2011, October 20, 2011,
and October 25, 2011, at the locations
listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
ADDRESSES: Comments, requests to
speak, and informational materials for
the rulemaking record may be sent to
MSHA by any of the following methods.
Clearly identify all submissions in the
subject line of the message with ‘‘RIN
1219–AB65’’.
• Federal E-Rulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• Facsimile: 202–693–9441.
• Mail or Hand Delivery: MSHA,
Office of Standards, Regulations, and
Variances, 1100 Wilson Blvd., Room
2350, Arlington, VA 22209–3939. For
hand delivery, sign in at the
receptionist’s desk on the 21st floor.
DATES:
Information Collection Requirements
Comments concerning the
information collection requirements of
this proposed rule must be clearly
identified with ‘‘RIN 1219–AB65’’ and
sent to both the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) and MSHA.
Comments to OMB may be sent by mail
addressed to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, New
Executive Office Building, 725 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503,
Attn: Desk Officer for MSHA. Comments
to MSHA may be transmitted by any of
the methods listed above in this section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Roslyn B. Fontaine, Acting Director,
Office of Standards, Regulations, and
Variances, MSHA, at
fontaine.roslyn@dol.gov (e-mail), 202–
693–9440 (voice), or 202–693–9441
(facsimile).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
A. Availability of Information
B. Public Hearings
C. Information Collection Supporting
Statement
D. Proposed Compliance Dates
II. Discussion of Proposed Rule
A. Background
B. Section-by-Section Analysis
III. Preliminary Regulatory Economic
Analysis
A. Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and
13563
B. Population at Risk
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
54163
C. Benefits
D. Compliance Costs
E. Net Benefits
IV. Feasibility
A. Technological Feasibility
B. Economic Feasibility
V. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act
A. Definition of a Small Mine
B. Factual Basis for Certification
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
A. Summary
B. Procedural Details
VII. Other Regulatory Considerations
A. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
B. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
C. The Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act of 1999: Assessment
of Federal Regulations and Policies on
Families
D. Executive Order 12630: Government
Actions and Interference With
Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights
E. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice
Reform
F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
VIII. References
I. Introduction
A. Availability of Information
Public Comments: MSHA posts all
comments without change, including
any personal information provided.
Access comments electronically on
https://www.regulations.gov and on
https://www.msha.gov/
currentcomments.asp. Review
comments 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.
E-mail notification: 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.
B. Public Hearings
MSHA will hold three public hearings
on the proposed rule to provide the
public with an opportunity to present
their views on this rulemaking. The
public hearings will begin at 9 a.m.
MSHA is holding the hearings on the
following dates at the locations
indicated:
E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM
31AUP1
54164
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Date
Location
October 18, 2011 ....................
Embassy Suites, Denver, Downtown/Convention Center, 1420 Stout Street, Denver, Colorado 80202.
Embassy Suites, Charleston, 300 Court St., Charleston, WV 25301 ....................................
Courtyard Washington, Meadow Lands, 1800 Tanger Boulevard, Washington, Pennsylvania 15301.
October 20, 2011 ....................
October 25, 2011 ....................
The hearings will begin with an
opening statement from MSHA,
followed by an opportunity for members
of the public to make oral presentations.
Persons do not have to make a written
request to speak; however, persons and
organizations wishing to speak are
encouraged to notify MSHA in advance
for scheduling purposes. MSHA
requests that parties making
presentations at the hearings submit
them no later than five days prior to the
hearing. Presentations and
accompanying documentation will be
included in the rulemaking record.
The hearings will be conducted in an
informal manner. Formal rules of
evidence and cross examination will not
apply. The hearing panel may ask
questions of speakers and speakers may
ask questions of the hearing panel.
Verbatim transcripts of the proceedings
will be prepared and made a part of the
Contact No.
rulemaking record. Copies of the
transcripts will be available to the
public. The transcripts may be viewed
at https://www.regulations.gov or https://
www.msha.gov/tscripts.htm.
C. Information Collection Supporting
Statement
MSHA posts Information Collection
Supporting Statements on https://
www.regulations.gov and on MSHA’s
Web site at https://www.msha.gov/
regspwork.htm. A copy of the
information collection package is also
available from the Department of Labor
by request to Michel Smyth at
smyth.michel@dol.gov (e-mail) or 202
693 4129 (voice); or from MSHA by
request to Roslyn Fontaine at
fontaine.roslyn@dol.gov (e mail) or 202–
693–9440 (voice) or 202–693–9441
(facsimile).
303–592–1000.
304–347–8700.
724–222–5620.
D. Proposed Compliance Dates
Under the proposed rule, each
underground coal mine operator would
be required to install proximity
detection systems on continuous mining
machines based on the date of
manufacture of the machine according
to the following schedule. MSHA
considers the date of manufacture as the
date identified on the machine or
otherwise provided by the
manufacturer.
1. By [Date 3 months after the
publication date of the final rule] for
continuous mining machines (except
full-face continuous mining machines)
manufactured after [date of publication
of the final rule].
2. By February 28, 2013 for
continuous mining machines (except
full-face continuous mining machines)
manufactured on or before August 31,
2011.
TABLE 1—PROPOSED RULE COMPLIANCE DATES
Machine type
Date of manufacture
3 months after the publication date
of final rule.
18 months after the publication
date of final rule.
Continuous Mining Machines (except full-face continuous mining machines).
Continuous Mining Machines (except full-face continuous mining machines).
After the publication date of final
rule.
On or before the publication date
of final rule.
II. Discussion of Proposed Rule
Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Compliance date
of an underground coal mine. Working
conditions in underground mines that
contribute to these hazards may include
limited visibility, limited space around
mobile machines, and uneven and
slippery ground conditions which may
contain debris.
MSHA has conducted a review of fatal
and nonfatal pinning, crushing, and
striking accidents in underground coal
mines involving continuous mining
machines to identify those that could
have been prevented by using a
proximity detection system. Of the
deaths in underground coal mines from
1984 through 2010, MSHA estimates
that 30 could have been prevented by
installing proximity detection systems
on continuous mining machines. During
this same time period, of all the injuries
due to pinning, crushing, and striking
accidents in underground coal mines,
approximately 220 could have been
prevented with proximity detection
A. Background
This proposed rule is issued under
section 101 of the Federal Mine Safety
and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act), as
amended. The proposed rule would
require mine operators to install
proximity detection systems on
continuous mining machines in
underground coal mines according to a
phased-in schedule for newly
manufactured and existing equipment.
It would also establish performance and
maintenance requirements for proximity
detection systems and require training
for installation and maintenance. The
proposed requirements would
strengthen protections for miners by
reducing the potential for pinning,
crushing, or striking fatalities and
injuries to miners who work near
continuous mining machines.
Miners are exposed to hazards that are
a result of working near continuous
mining machines in the confined space
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:28 Aug 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
systems installed on continuous mining
machines.
MSHA’s analysis of fatalities and nonfatal accidents during the 1984 through
2010 period indicates that many of these
accidents occurred in confined areas in
underground coal mines where a
proximity detection system could have
warned the miners and stopped the
machines before the accident. Proximity
detection systems are needed because
training and outreach initiatives alone
have not prevented these accidents and
the systems can provide necessary
protections for miners. In 2004, MSHA
introduced a special initiative to inform
underground coal mine operators and
miners about the dangers of pinning,
crushing, or striking hazards. MSHA’s
outreach efforts included webcasts,
special alerts, videos, bulletins, and
inspector-to-miner instruction. Despite
these efforts, pinning, crushing, and
striking accidents still occur. There
were two fatalities and four injuries in
E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM
31AUP1
Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2011 / Proposed Rules
2010 where a continuous mining
machine pinned, crushed, or struck a
miner. In 2011, a continuous mining
machine operator was fatally injured.
The preliminary report of the accident
states the operator was pinned by the
machine.
Proximity detection is a technology
that uses electronic sensors to detect
motion or the location of one object
relative to another. Proximity detection
systems can provide a warning and stop
mobile machines before a pinning,
crushing, or striking accident occurs
that could result in injury or death to
miners.
In 1998, MSHA evaluated accidents
involving remote controlled mining
machines and determined that
proximity detection systems have the
potential to prevent accidents that occur
when the machine operator or another
miner gets too close to the machine
(Dransite, 1998). MSHA noted that if
changes in work practices or machine
design do not prevent miners from being
placed in unsafe locations, the Agency
should consider a requirement for
proximity detection by means of signal
detectors with automatic machine
shutdown. No MSHA-approved
proximity detection systems were
commercially available for underground
mines at that time.
In 2002, following a series of fatal
pinning, crushing, and striking
accidents, MSHA decided to work with
the coal mining industry to develop a
proximity detection system. MSHA
evaluated: (1) The Bureau of Mines’
Hazardous Area Signaling and Ranging
Device (HASARD) system; (2) the
Nautilus, International ‘‘Buddy
System’’; and (3) the International
Mining Technologies ‘‘Mine Mate’’
system. MSHA selected the Nautilus,
International ‘‘Buddy System’’ for
testing because it could be adapted to
remote controlled continuous mining
machines in the least amount of time.
MSHA first tested the system in July
2003. MSHA, a mine operator, a
machine manufacturer, and Nautilus,
International developed performance
criteria for field testing the system
(MSHA Proximity Protection System
Specification, October 4, 2004). MSHA
evaluated the system for permissibility
under 30 CFR 18.82 and issued an
experimental permit on May 30, 2003.
After several revisions, the Agency field
tested the system in March 2006 and
determined that it met the established
performance criteria. While MSHA was
testing the Nautilus system, another
manufacturer developed a similar
system, the Geosteering TramguardTM
System, which MSHA tested in June
2005 under an experimental permit on
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:28 Aug 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
a remote controlled continuous mining
machine. In November 2005, MSHA
field tested the Geosteering
TramguardTM System in accordance
with MSHA established criteria and it
performed successfully.
MSHA approved the Nautilus,
International ‘‘Buddy System’’ and the
Geosteering TramguardTM System in
2006 and a third system, the Matrix
Design Group M3–1000 Proximity
Monitoring System, in 2009, under
existing regulations for permissibility in
30 CFR part 18. These approvals are
intended to ensure that the systems will
not introduce an ignition hazard when
operated in potentially explosive
atmospheres. MSHA’s approval
regulations under 30 CFR part 18 do not
address how systems will perform in
reducing pinning, crushing, or striking
hazards.
The three MSHA-approved proximity
detection systems operate using
electromagnetic technology. The
Nautilus, International ‘‘Buddy System’’
and the Strata Mining Products
HazardAvertTM System (formerly the
Geosteering TramguardTM System)
require a miner to wear a component
that measures the strength of an
electromagnetic field generated by
antennas strategically located on the
machine. A microprocessor onboard the
machine is interconnected with the
machine control circuitry and
communicates with the miner-wearable
component. The microprocessor sends a
signal to activate a warning or stop
machine movement when the miner
wearing the component is within a
prescribed distance of the machine.
The Matrix Design Group (now
partnered with Joy Mining Machinery to
commercialize the system for
continuous mining machines) M3–1000
Proximity Monitoring System operates
in a similar manner but generates the
magnetic field around the minerwearable component. In this case, the
machine is equipped with sensors that
detect the magnetic field around the
miner. The sensors are connected to a
microprocessor which interprets the
signals and communicates warning and
stop commands to the machine. MSHA
did not participate in the development
of Matrix Design Group’s proximity
detection system for remote controlled
continuous mining machines because
Matrix did not request assistance.
At least 35 remote controlled
continuous mining machines in
underground coal mines in the United
States are equipped with proximity
detection systems. MSHA monitors the
installation and development of these
systems to maintain up-to-date
information on the number of proximity
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
54165
detection systems being used and the
capabilities of the various systems.
MSHA also evaluated the use of
proximity detection systems in
underground mines in the Republic of
South Africa (South Africa). MSHA staff
traveled to South Africa in April 2010
to observe the performance of several
proximity detection systems, including
the Strata Safety Products
HazardAvertTM System that was
developed in the United States. One of
the mines visited began testing the
Strata system in 2008 and, at the time
of the MSHA visit, had equipped all
mobile machines on three complete
underground coal mine sections with
the system. The mine is using the
proximity detection system on remote
controlled continuous mining machines,
shuttle cars, roof bolting machines,
feeder breakers, and load-haul-dump
machines (scoops). In addition to the
Strata system, MSHA also observed the
Booyco Collision Warning System
(CWS) being used on continuous mining
machines. The mining operations,
conditions, and machines in
underground coal mines in South Africa
are similar to those in underground coal
mines in the United States. The South
African mines that MSHA visited are
room and pillar operations with
approximately 10-foot high and 22-foot
wide entries.
The Strata Safety Products
HazardAvertTM System used in South
Africa is similar to the HazardAvertTM
System used in underground coal mines
in the United States. The
HazardAvertTM System for continuous
mining machines provides two zones.
When a miner is within the outer zone,
an audible and visual signal is activated.
When a miner is within the inner zone,
machine movement is stopped. The
miner-wearable component is
incorporated into the cap lamp battery
and includes a warning buzzer and
flashing LED that clips to the hardhat.
The Booyco system, observed in
South Africa, provides warning signals
to miners and machine operators. It
does not stop machine movement. There
are two zones associated with the
Booyco system. When a miner enters the
outer zone, an audible and visual
warning signal is provided to the miner
working near the machine. When a
miner enters the inner zone, an audible
and visual warning signal is provided to
both the miner and the machine
operator. This system could be modified
to stop machine movement. The Booyco
system is not MSHA-approved and is
not being used in the United States.
In 2004, MSHA initiated a safety
campaign to raise the mining industry’s
awareness of pinning, crushing, and
E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM
31AUP1
54166
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
striking hazards associated with remote
controlled continuous mining machines.
This safety campaign was targeted to the
underground coal mining industry and
included webcasts, special alerts,
videos, bulletins, and inspector-tominer instruction. There were no
fatalities associated with continuous
mining machines between 2005 and
2007 indicating the safety campaign
may have had a positive impact on fatal
accidents. However, pinning, crushing,
and striking accidents continue to
occur. Two fatalities in 2010 related to
pinning, crushing, or striking accidents
involving a continuous mining machine
could have been prevented by using
proximity detection systems.
The Agency published a Request for
Information (RFI) on proximity
detection systems in the Federal
Register on February 1, 2010 (75 FR
5009). The comment period closed on
April 2, 2010. MSHA received
comments from: Mining associations;
mining companies; manufacturers; and
state, Federal, and an international
government entity.
Comments addressed specific
questions regarding function,
application, training, costs, and benefits
of proximity detection systems to
reduce the risk of accidents. Some
commenters stated that proximity
detection systems are beneficial and can
prevent pinning, crushing, and striking
accidents. Commenters stated that
conditions in the mining environment,
including blocked visibility and limited
space, or simply the lack of sight due to
limited light, can cause an accident and
that the only way to address these
hazards is to equip mining vehicles with
a proximity detection system. A
commenter stated that, when it comes to
safety, engineering barriers are required
when the behavior of everyone, whether
due to the lack of training or taking
shortcuts, cannot be relied on. Several
commenters stated that the technology
needs further development and testing.
RFI comments related to specific
provisions of the proposed rule are
addressed in the section-by-section
analysis.
B. Section-by-Section Analysis
The proposed rule would require
underground coal mine operators to
equip continuous mining machines
(except full-face continuous mining
machines) with proximity detection
systems over an 18-month phase-in
period.
1. Section 75.1732(a) Machines Covered
Proposed § 75.1732(a) would require
operators to equip continuous mining
machines (except full-face continuous
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:28 Aug 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
mining machines) with a proximity
detection system in accordance with the
following dates: 3 months after August
31, 2011 for machines manufactured
after August 31, 2011; and 18 months
after August 31, 2011 for machines
manufactured on or before August 31,
2011.
A commenter, in response to the RFI,
stated that MSHA’s approval process
does not include an evaluation of the
system’s functional readiness to perform
in the underground mine environment.
This commenter indicated that only a
handful of mines have operational
experience with approved systems and
that a thorough examination of the
operational readiness of these systems
must be undertaken to address safety
issues before they are required. Several
other commenters stated that proximity
detection systems have not proven
reliable and that more testing is needed.
One of these commenters stated that
establishing a set distance from a miner
at which a machine would shut down
needs further analysis due to its
potential to force machine operators out
of previously safe areas into potentially
less safe areas in order to avoid
shutdown.
In response to the RFI, a proximity
detection system manufacturer stated
that it has experience with proximity
detection systems on remote controlled
continuous mining machines in five
coal mines in the United States and on
machines in mines within South Africa
and Australia. A representative of a
South African mining company that
uses this system on continuous mining
machines stated in its comments that
the system is very reliable. This South
African mining company reported that it
did not have a single reliability problem
over a period of 18 months. A second
proximity detection system
manufacturer stated that its proximity
detection system is installed on many
types of underground mobile machines
in Canada and Australia and that there
has not been a serious injury or fatality
reported on any machine using its
proximity detection system. A coal mine
operator and a third manufacturer
commented jointly and stated that
development of a proximity detection
system for remote controlled continuous
mining machines is still in the early
stages and it is premature to consider
rulemaking for other types of mobile
underground equipment. However, this
commenter also stated that applying
proximity detection systems to all
mobile machines should be a ‘‘long-term
goal’’ that could provide safety benefits
and that the coal mine operator plans to
voluntarily equip its entire fleet of
remote controlled continuous mining
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
machines with proximity detection
systems.
The proposed rule would require
underground coal mine operators to
equip continuous mining machines
(except full-face continuous mining
machines) with proximity detection
systems. MSHA has determined that
continuous mining machines expose
miners to dangers when working in
underground coal mines and that these
machines have resulted in injuries and
fatalities to miners. Of the 70 fatalities
resulting from pinning, crushing, and
striking accidents from 1984 through
2010 in underground coal mines, 30
were associated with a continuous
mining machine. Use of proximity
detection systems could have prevented
these accidents and the fatalities by
stopping continuous mining machine
movement before miners were pinned,
crushed, or struck by the machine.
Proposed § 75.1732(a) would not
require underground coal mine
operators to equip full-face continuous
mining machines with a proximity
detection system. A full-face continuous
mining machine includes integral roof
bolting equipment and develops the full
width of the mine entry in a single cut,
generally without having to change its
location. Full-face continuous mining
machines can be operated remotely or
by an operator positioned in a
compartment on the machine (on-board
operator). Continuous mining machines
that are not full-face machines are placechanging continuous mining machines
because they must change places to cut
the full width of an entry.
A commenter on the RFI stated that
current proximity detection system
designs should only apply to remote
controlled continuous mining machines
that are considered place-changing
machines and not full-face continuous
mining machines. This same commenter
indicated that a proximity detection
system for full-face continuous mining
machines would require a significantly
more complicated design to
accommodate the miners who operate
the roof and rib bolting equipment.
Another commenter on the RFI stated
that an MSHA standard could address
all continuous mining machines except
those with integral/satellite bolters (fullface continuous mining machines.)
After a review of comments, accident
data, and Agency experience, MSHA is
not proposing that proximity detection
systems be required for full-face
continuous mining machines since they
present fewer hazards to miners. Fullface continuous mining machines
involve less frequent place-changing
and repositioning, resulting in fewer
pinning, crushing, or striking hazards to
E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM
31AUP1
Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2011 / Proposed Rules
miners. MSHA is not aware of any fatal
or nonfatal accidents involving either
remote controlled or on-board operated
full-face continuous mining machines
that a proximity detection system could
have prevented. Also, MSHA does not
have experience with proximity
detection systems on remote controlled
or on-board operated full-face
continuous mining machines.
Except for full-face continuous
mining machines, the proposed rule
would require proximity detection
systems to be installed on both on-board
operated and remote controlled
continuous mining machines. Remote
controlled continuous mining machines
account for the greater number of
fatalities. Operators not in an operator’s
compartment and miners working near
the continuous mining machine are at
risk from pinning, crushing, and striking
hazards. More accidents are associated
with remote controlled continuous
mining machines because
approximately 97% of continuous
mining machines are remote controlled
and because the machine operator is not
protected from pinning, crushing, and
striking accidents by an on-board
operator’s compartment. However, onboard operated continuous mining
machines also present a pinning,
crushing, and striking hazard to miners
other than the operator and would be
required to be equipped with proximity
detection systems. On-board operated
continuous mining machines were
involved in 2 of the 30 fatalities that
could have been prevented by use of a
proximity detection system.
MSHA solicits comments on how fullface continuous mining machines
should be addressed. Comments should
be specific and include alternatives,
rationale for suggested alternatives,
safety benefits to miners, technological
and economic feasibility considerations,
and supporting data.
The proposed rule would phase in the
use of proximity detection systems on
newly manufactured continuous mining
machines and continuous mining
machines in service on the publication
date of the final rule over an 18-month
period. The phase-in period is based on
the availability of systems, the time
necessary to process approvals for
proximity detection systems, projected
time needed to install systems, and
MSHA and industry experience.
The Agency recognizes that it will
take time for proximity detection system
manufacturers, machine manufacturers,
and mine operators to obtain approval
under 30 CFR part 18. It will also take
time for manufacturers and mine
operators to produce and install
proximity detection systems.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:28 Aug 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
Several commenters on the RFI
recommended that MSHA consider a
phase-in approach with separate
compliance dates addressing new
equipment, rebuilt equipment, and
equipment in service in underground
mines. One commenter encouraged
MSHA to proceed cautiously and to
provide the time required to assure the
development of reliable and effective
systems. Another commenter stated that
most machines will be retrofitted with
proximity detection systems in a shop
or during rebuild. A proximity detection
system manufacturer stated that a
proximity detection system can be
installed and calibrated on a remote
controlled continuous mining machine
in one midnight shift.
MSHA has determined that three
months would be an appropriate
amount of time for operators to install
proximity detection systems on
continuous mining machines (except
full-face continuous mining machines)
that are manufactured after [the
publication date of the final rule].
In selecting this three-month time
frame, MSHA took into consideration
the time period for the rulemaking,
availability of three existing MSHAapproved proximity detection systems
for continuous mining machines, the
estimated number of continuous mining
machines that would be replaced by
newly manufactured machines during
this period, and manufacturers’ capacity
to produce and install systems for these
machines. The three-month time period
allows mine operators some time to
inform and train their workforce on
proximity detection systems.
The proposed rule would provide an
additional 15 months for operators to
retrofit continuous mining machines,
except full-face continuous mining
machines, that are manufactured on or
before the publication date of the final
rule with proximity detection systems.
MSHA estimates that there are 1,150
place-changing continuous mining
machines in underground coal mines.
These machines would need to be
replaced by a new machine with a
proximity detection system or retrofitted
with a proximity detection system.
MSHA has determined that 18 months
would provide both operators and
manufacturers with enough time to
retrofit place-changing continuous
mining machines manufactured on or
before the publication date of the final
rule with proximity detection systems.
MSHA recognizes that these machines,
which are in service when the final rule
goes into effect, will need to be taken
out of service for a period of time. The
additional 15 months would allow mine
operators to schedule the installation
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
54167
during planned rebuilds or scheduled
maintenance and would allow mine
operators some time to inform and train
their workforce on proximity detection
systems.
Continuous mining machines
addressed in this proposal must be
approved by MSHA as permissible
equipment under existing regulations in
30 CFR part 18 before they can be used
in underground coal mines. The
machine manufacturer or the mine
operator can obtain MSHA approval.
Machine manufacturers with MSHA
approvals may submit an application to
MSHA’s Approval and Certification
Center (A&CC) to add a proximity
detection system to their approval.
MSHA projects that machine
manufacturers would submit
applications to allow all of their new
and many of their older models to be
equipped with proximity detection
systems. In instances where the
equipment manufacturer is no longer in
business or chooses not to seek
approval, the mine operator has the
option to apply for a field modification
or a district field change to equip the
machines with a proximity detection
system. A mine operator can either
request a field modification through the
A&CC or a field change through MSHA’s
District Offices.
MSHA permissibility approvals
include both evaluation of the proximity
detection systems and the addition of
the systems to MSHA-approved
continuous mining machines. MSHA
offers an optional Proximity Detection
Acceptance (PDA) program which
allows a proximity detection system
manufacturer to obtain MSHA
acceptance for a proximity detection
system (PDA Acceptance Number). This
acceptance states that the proximity
detection system has been evaluated
under 30 CFR part 18 and is suitable for
incorporation on an MSHA-approved
machine. It permits the manufacturer or
owner of a machine to add the
proximity detection system to a
machine by requesting MSHA to add the
acceptance number to the machine
approval. However, a proximity
detection system manufacturer is not
required to obtain a proximity detection
system acceptance. MSHA could also
approve a machine modification
submitted by a continuous mining
machine manufacturer or a field
modification submitted by a mine
operator that includes a complete
evaluation of a proximity detection
system that has not been evaluated
under a PDA acceptance.
Based on conversations with
manufacturers of the three MSHAapproved proximity detection systems,
E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM
31AUP1
Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
54168
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2011 / Proposed Rules
MSHA estimates that together they can
produce approximately 350 units per
month. MSHA estimates that the
manufacturers can increase production
to about 400 to 600 units per month, if
necessary, within approximately three
to six months. MSHA determined that it
would take approximately eight months
to provide a sufficient number of units
to equip approximately 1,150 placechanging continuous mining machines
with proximity detection systems.
However, the two phase-in periods are
based on the time needed for: Providing
sufficient numbers of systems; installing
the systems on newly manufactured and
existing machines; obtaining necessary
MSHA approvals and test systems; and
informing and training the workforce.
MSHA solicits comments on the
proposed compliance dates. Comments
should be specific and include
alternatives, rationale for suggested
alternatives, safety benefits to miners,
technological and economic feasibility
considerations, and supporting data.
As the proximity detection systems
are phased in, mine operators would be
required to provide miners with new
task training under existing part 48.
MSHA intends that mine operators
would address safety issues that might
arise during the phase-in period, such as
some machines being equipped with
proximity detection systems while
others are not, through existing new task
training requirements. In addition,
MSHA recently introduced a new
initiative titled ‘‘Safety Practices
Around Shuttle Cars and Scoops in
Underground Coal Mines.’’ This
outreach program includes training
programs and best practices to
encourage mine operators to train
underground coal miners to exercise
caution when working around mobile
machines. Information regarding this
initiative is available at: https://
www.msha.gov/focuson/watchout/
watchout.asp.
In response to the RFI, some
commenters stated that miners will
need task training when machines are
equipped with a proximity detection
system. Miners working near proximity
detection systems would probably need
to engage in different and unfamiliar
machine operating procedures resulting
from new work positions, machine
movements, and new visual or auditory
signals. Existing § 48.7(a) requires that
miners assigned to new work tasks as
mobile equipment operators shall not
perform new work tasks until training
has been completed. In addition,
§ 48.7(c) requires miners assigned a new
task not covered in § 48.7(a) be
instructed in the safety and health
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:28 Aug 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
aspects and safe work procedures of the
task prior to performing such task.
Miners must receive new task and
equipment training on the proper
functioning of a proximity detection
system before operating or working near
a machine equipped with a proximity
detection system. New task training
(which is separate from new miner
training under existing § 48.5 and
annual refresher training under existing
§ 48.8) must occur before miners operate
machines equipped with a proximity
detection system. New task training
helps assure that miners have the
necessary skills to perform new tasks
prior to assuming responsibility for the
tasks. Mine operators should assure that
this training include hands-on training
during supervised non-production
activities. The hands-on training allows
miners to experience how the systems
work and to locate the appropriate work
positions around machines. Based on
Agency experience, the hands-on
training is most effective when provided
in miners’ work locations. As required
by existing § 48.7(a)(3) for new or
modified machines and equipment,
equipment and machine operators shall
be instructed in safe operating
procedures applicable to new or
modified machines or equipment to be
installed or put into operation in the
mine, which require new or different
operating procedures.
MSHA requests comments on the
training of miners who use proximity
detection systems or work near
machines equipped with these systems.
Comments should address the type of
training, frequency of training, content
of training, and which miners should be
trained. Comments should be specific
and include alternatives, rationale for
suggested alternatives, safety benefits to
miners, technological and economic
feasibility considerations, and
supporting data.
2. Section 75.1732(b) Requirements for
Proximity Detection Systems
Proposed § 75.1732(b) would address
requirements for proximity detection
systems.
Proposed paragraph (b)(1) would
require that a proximity detection
system cause a machine to stop no
closer than three feet from a miner. This
proposed requirement would prevent
pinning, crushing, and striking
accidents.
In the RFI, MSHA asked for comments
on the size and shape of the area around
machines that a proximity detection
system monitors and how systems can
be programmed and installed to provide
different zones of protection depending
on machine function. Some commenters
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
stated that an effective proximity
detection system should cause the
machine to stop before a miner enters
the hazardous area around the machine
and a warning should be provided
before the proximity detection system
causes the machine to stop.
Some commenters stated that zone
size should be determined using a risk
assessment considering the speed at
which the proximity detection system
can alert the operator, the reaction time
of the operator, and the number of
people in the working area. Another
commenter stated that work practices
vary among mines so that one specified
zone may not work for all mines.
Another commenter stated that fixed
zone sizes are used in the commenter’s
operations because using different zones
of protection based on equipment
function could confuse miners and zone
sizes should be kept small to avoid
nuisance alarms but not so small so as
to allow a dangerous condition. One
commenter stated that establishing a set
distance from a miner at which a
machine would shut down needs
further analysis due to its potential to
force machine operators out of
previously safe areas into potentially
less safe areas in order to avoid
shutdown.
NIOSH has performed research on
proximity detection systems. NIOSH has
an Internet Web Page (https://
www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/topics/
topicpage58.htm) that provides
publications on proximity detection
systems and technology. The
publications address measurement and
analysis issues related to the work
positions of continuous mining machine
operators, needs and practices of
machine operators while controlling the
machine, and the reasons for needing
particular operational cues, machinerelated injuries in and priorities for
safety research, and operating speed
assessments of underground mining
equipment. Several other publications
on this Web page discuss the
application of proximity detection
systems as engineering controls to
prevent mining accidents.
In their comments on the RFI, NIOSH
stated that the goal of a proximity
detection system should be to prevent
machine actions or situations that injure
workers while not placing restrictions
on how the workers do their jobs.
NIOSH also stated that the total time
required for performing proximity
detection system functions, plus a safety
factor, should be used to define the size
of detection zones around machines.
NIOSH stated that the total time
required includes these components: (1)
Detection of a potential victim; (2)
E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM
31AUP1
Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2011 / Proposed Rules
decision processing to determine if a
collision-avoidance function is needed;
(3) an initiation of the collisionavoidance function; and (4)
implementation of the collisionavoidance function. NIOSH stated that
any rulemaking should be performancebased.
MSHA’s experience with testing and
observing proximity detection systems
indicates that causing a machine to stop
no closer than three feet from a miner
would provide an appropriate distance,
or margin of safety, between a machine
and a miner to prevent pinning,
crushing, or striking hazards. In
addition, MSHA consulted relevant
published studies. A team of NIOSH
researchers evaluated operator
interactions with continuous mining
machines and roof bolting machines.
The researchers concluded that by
maintaining a minimum 910 mm (3 ft)
distance from the machine, continuous
mining machine operators can
substantially reduce their risk of being
struck (Bartels, 2009). MSHA believes
that this distance includes a margin of
safety and is necessary to account for
varying mining conditions, differences
in the operating condition of machines,
and variations in the positioning of
miner-wearable components of the
proximity detection system in relation
to machines.
The proposed three-foot stopping
requirement is consistent with MSHA’s
observations of operating proximity
detection systems in an underground
coal mine in South Africa. During
MSHA’s visit, staff observed that the
proximity detection systems installed
on continuous mining machines caused
the machine to stop before getting closer
than three feet from a miner. Prior to the
introduction of proximity detection
systems at their mines, the company’s
policy was that miners must maintain a
minimum distance of three feet from all
operating mobile machines.
Each of the three proximity detection
systems approved for underground coal
mines in the United States has a minerwearable component. Because the
location of the miner-wearable
component is the point at which the
systems measure distance, a part of the
miner’s body may be further from or
closer to the machine when the minerwearable component is exactly three
feet from a machine. For these systems,
MSHA intends that the three-foot
distance be measured from the surface
of the machine closest to the minerwearable component. MSHA intends
that the machine remain stopped (or
will not move) while any miner is three
feet or closer to the nearest surface of
the machine.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:28 Aug 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
One method a mine operator could
use to determine that a proximity
detection system will cause the machine
to stop no closer than three feet from a
miner is to suspend a miner-wearable
component from the mine roof, move
the machine towards the suspended
component, and after the machine stops
movement, measure the distance
between the machine and the
suspended component to check whether
the three-foot distance has been met.
MSHA recognizes that many factors
would be considered when determining
whether the proximity detection system
will cause the machine to stop no closer
than three feet from a miner. These
factors, among others, include machine
speed, slope of entries, and wet
roadways.
MSHA considered proposing a
performance-oriented requirement that
would not specify a specific distance a
machine must stop from a miner, e.g.,
‘‘before contacting a miner.’’ MSHA also
considered proposing other specific
stopping distances, e.g., six feet from a
miner but concluded that longer
stopping distances may increase the
frequency of machine shutdowns while
offering little additional benefit to
miners. MSHA solicits comments on the
proposed three-foot stopping distance
requirement and on other alternatives to
this proposed provision. Comments
should be specific and address how the
requirement impacts miner safety.
Comments should include safety
benefits to miners, technological and
economic feasibility considerations, and
supporting data.
MSHA recognizes that there are
different points that could be used to
measure the proposed three-foot
distance from a machine to a miner
when the proximity detection system
requires the miner to wear a component
and solicits comments on the point at
which the three-foot stopping distance
should be measured. Comments should
be specific and include suggested
alternatives, rationale for suggested
alternatives, safety benefits to miners,
technological and economic feasibility
considerations, and supporting data.
The proposed rule would require that
all machine movement be stopped when
a miner gets closer than three feet
except for the continuous mining
machine operator when cutting coal or
rock. It is important to note that the
proposed exception would only apply
when the machine operator is actually
cutting coal or rock. Some current
proximity detection systems on
continuous mining machines are
installed to stop machine tram
movement and the conveyor swing
function when the system is activated
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
54169
while permitting other machine
movement, such as rotation of the cutter
head and movement of the gathering
arms. MSHA solicits comments on
whether all movement should be
stopped. Comments should be specific
and include alternatives, rationale for
suggested alternatives, safety benefits to
miners, technological and economic
feasibility considerations, and
supporting data.
The three MSHA-approved proximity
detection systems have a minerwearable component. These systems
cannot detect a miner who is not
wearing the component. The cost
estimates for the miner-wearable
components included in the Preliminary
Regulatory Economic Analysis (PREA)
are based on miners on the working
section being equipped with these
components. MSHA solicits comments
on which miners working around
continuous mining machines should be
required to have a miner-wearable
component. Comments should be
specific and include alternatives,
rationale for suggested alternatives,
safety benefits to miners, technological
and economic feasibility considerations,
and supporting data.
Proposed paragraph (b)(1)(i) would
provide an exception for a miner who is
in an on-board operator’s compartment.
Machines with an on-board operator
will not function if the proximity
detection system prevents machine
movement when the operator is within
three feet of the machine. One proximity
detection system is currently designed
to allow a miner to be in an on-board
operator’s compartment while assuring
that miners outside the operator’s
compartment are protected. Proposed
paragraph (b)(1)(i) would allow
machines equipped with a proximity
detection system to move if a miner
occupies the operator’s compartment.
The proposed rule would require that
continuous mining machines be stopped
if any miner not in the operator’s
compartment is closer than three feet.
Commenters generally stated that
machines with an on-board operator’s
compartment should have a proximity
detection system that allows machines
to function when the operator is in the
operator’s compartment. One
commenter stated that a proximity
detection system can include exclusion
zones to allow mobile machines to move
while a miner is in the exclusion zone
but still protect other miners.
Proposed paragraph (b)(1)(ii) would
provide an exception for a miner who is
remotely operating a continuous mining
machine while cutting coal or rock. In
this case, the proximity detection
system would be required to cause the
E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM
31AUP1
Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
54170
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2011 / Proposed Rules
machine to stop before contacting the
machine operator. The use of the term
‘‘cutting coal or rock’’ would not
include situations where the cutter head
is rotating but not removing coal or rock
from the face.
In response to the RFI, one
commenter stated that a remote
controlled continuous mining machine
that is tramming presents different
hazards than one that is cutting coal.
This commenter stated that the size and
shape of the detection zone should be
changed based on the function of the
machine. Some commenters stated that
zone sizes could depend on machine
function (cutting or tramming). Several
commenters suggested that protection
zones should be largest when tramming
machines and reduced protection zones
are needed for certain mining operations
such as cutting. Another commenter
stated that the proximity detection
system for a remote controlled
continuous mining machine should
keep all personnel at a safe distance
from the periphery of the machine
except for the operator who should be
allowed to approach the machine at
designated locations to perform cutting
operations, such that if the operator fails
to stay in the designated locations, the
machine will immediately stop.
MSHA is not aware of a continuous
mining machine fatal accident that
occurred while the machine was cutting
coal or rock. In all the 30 continuous
mining machine fatal accidents from
1984 to 2010 which could have been
prevented by proximity detection
systems, the continuous mining
machine was in the process of being
moved (trammed) when the accident
occurred. In addition, there are certain
mining operations where the continuous
mining machine operators get closer
than within three feet of the machine in
order to properly perform the required
tasks (e.g., turning crosscuts). In
MSHA’s experience, when a continuous
mining machine is cutting coal or rock,
the machine moves in a slower manner,
which reduces the hazard. For these
reasons, MSHA proposes to allow a
continuous mining machine operator to
be closer than three feet from the
machine while cutting coal or rock;
however, the proximity detection
system would be required to stop
machine movement before contacting
the operator. The proximity detection
system would be required to stop
machine movement if a miner who is
not remotely operating the continuous
mining machine gets closer than three
feet from the machine while the
machine is cutting coal or rock. The
proximity detection systems that MHSA
observed in South Africa do not allow
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:28 Aug 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
miners within three feet of a continuous
mining machine while cutting coal or
rock. However, these mines have larger
entry dimensions than underground
coal mines in the United States, which
provides more room for machine
operator positioning.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2) would
require the proximity detection system
to provide an audible or visual warning
signal distinguishable from other
signals, when the machine is five feet
and closer to a miner.
In the RFI, MSHA asked for
information on the most effective
protection that proximity detection
systems could provide. In response,
some commenters stated that a
proximity detection system should
include a warning prior to causing the
machine to stop movement. One
commenter stated that proximity
detection systems should include a
range of escalating alerts depending on
the proximity to a hazard.
Most proximity detection systems
alert miners who get within a certain
distance of a machine, before causing
machine movement to stop. This
provides an added margin of safety and
is consistent with most standard safety
practices. The Agency recognizes that
the use of a proximity detection system
that causes frequent machine stops can
result in: frustration to miners; miners
ignoring warnings; and can possibly
lead to unsafe work practices. MSHA
believes that an appropriate warning
signal is necessary to optimize miner
safety when using a proximity detection
system.
Based on MSHA’s experience,
proximity detection systems in the
United States provide an audible or
visual warning signal when a miner is
five feet and closer to a machine. The
systems on continuous mining
machines in South Africa provide an
audible warning signal when a miner is
closer than six feet to a machine.
However, entries in the United States
are typically narrower than those
observed in South Africa, making a fivefoot distance more appropriate and
minimizing unnecessary warning
signals. In MSHA’s experience, an
audible or visual warning signal
provided when the machine is five feet
and closer to a miner includes a
necessary margin of safety and allows
the miner an opportunity to be proactive
and move away from the machine to
avoid danger.
Consistent with proposed paragraph
(b)(1)(i), proposed paragraph (b)(2)(i)
would provide an exception to the
warning signal for the miner who is in
an on-board operator’s compartment.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Consistent with proposed paragraph
(b)(1)(ii), proposed paragraph (b)(2)(ii)
would provide an exception to the
warning signal for a miner who is
remotely operating a continuous mining
machine while cutting coal or rock. A
five-foot warning signal would not
improve safety in this case because the
operator may be closer than five feet to
the machine for the duration of the
activity of cutting coal or rock. Under
the proposed rule, the proximity
detection system would be required to
provide a warning signal when the
machine is closer than five feet from
miners who are not remotely operating
a continuous mining machine while the
machine is cutting coal or rock.
Proposed paragraph (b)(3) would
require that a proximity detection
system provide a visual signal on the
machine that indicates the system is
functioning properly.
Commenters in response to the RFI
generally stated that a proximity
detection system should include system
diagnostics and indicate that the system
is functioning properly. In its comments
on the RFI, NIOSH stated that each
proximity detection system should
perform self-diagnostics to identify
software or hardware problems.
The proposed visual signal would
allow miners to readily determine that
a proximity detection system is
functioning properly. MSHA believes
that a visual signal is preferable to
provide feedback to the miner because,
unlike an audible signal, it could not be
obscured by surrounding noise. A lightemitting diode (LED) would be an
acceptable visual signal.
Proposed paragraph (b)(4) would
require that a proximity detection
system prevent movement of the
machine if the system is not functioning
properly. However, as proposed, a
system may allow machine movement
so that if the system is not functioning
properly, the machine can be moved if
an audible or visual warning signal,
distinguishable from other signals, is
provided during movement. Such
movement would be permitted only for
purposes of relocating the machine from
an unsafe location for repair.
Commenters in response to the RFI
had different opinions on whether a
proximity detection system should be
permitted to override the shutdown
feature to allow machine movement in
a particular circumstance. One
commenter stated that a proximity
detection system must provide a
continuous self-check capability so that
if the system is not functioning
properly, the machine cannot be
operated; this same commenter stated
that only an appointed person should
E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM
31AUP1
Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2011 / Proposed Rules
have the authority to override a
proximity detection system. Several
commenters stated that a proximity
detection system should allow for
temporary deactivation, such as an
emergency override, in case a system is
not functioning properly while a
machine is under unsupported roof.
Another commenter, however, stated
that a proximity detection system
should not have an override feature.
Proposed paragraph (b)(4) would
allow machine movement so that if the
proximity detection system is not
functioning properly and is in an unsafe
location, the machine can be moved if
an audible or visual warning signal,
distinguishable from other signals, is
provided during movement. The
proposed provision would allow a
machine to be moved if it is not
functioning properly and is in an unsafe
location, such as under unsupported
roof, to protect miners from hazards that
could arise if the proximity detection
system is not functioning properly and
is in an unsafe location. Overriding the
proximity detection system should only
occur for the time necessary to move the
machine to a safe location—for example,
the time needed to move a continuous
mining machine from under
unsupported roof to an appropriate
repair location. This movement would
be allowed only to relocate the machine
for safety reasons. The proposed
provision to allow the machine to be
moved would require an audible or
visual warning signal, distinguishable
from other signals, to caution miners
when the machine is being moved from
an unsafe location.
Proposed paragraph (b)(5) would
require that a proximity detection
system be installed to prevent
interference with or from other
electrical systems.
Some commenters in response to the
RFI stated that interference of proximity
detection systems with other mine
electrical systems is a concern.
However, manufacturers of the three
approved proximity detection systems
all stated that their systems do not have
significant interference issues. A
commenter stated that electromagnetic
interference may prevent these systems
from providing complete protection to
miners. Several commenters stated that
systems must be designed and tested for
possible and known sources of
interference before a requirement for
proximity detection is issued. A
commenter expressed concern that a
proximity detection system may
detonate explosives due to
electromagnetic field interference.
Electrical systems, including
proximity detection systems, used in the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:28 Aug 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
mine can adversely affect the function
of other electrical systems. The
interference results from
electromagnetic interference (EMI).
There have been instances of adverse
performance of remote controlled
systems, atmospheric monitoring
systems, and cap lamps when a handheld radio was operated nearby.
Electromagnetic output of approved
proximity detection systems is
substantially lower than other mine
electrical systems such as
communication and atmospheric
monitoring systems, and therefore, the
likelihood of encountering interference
issues is less.
The mine operator would be required
to evaluate the proximity detection
system and other electrical systems in
the mine and take adequate steps to
prevent adverse interference. Steps
could include design considerations
such as the addition of filters or
providing adequate separation between
electrical systems. The mine operator
would also be required to take steps to
prevent interference with any blasting
circuits used in the mine.
Proposed paragraph (b)(6) would
require that a proximity detection
system be installed and maintained by
a person trained in the installation and
maintenance of the system. The
proximity detection systems use
advanced technology that often must be
coordinated with machine electronics to
ensure the system functions properly.
MSHA believes this work should be
performed by miners who are properly
trained to understand the operation of
the system and the proper installation
techniques.
A commenter in response to the RFI
stated that maintenance personnel and
machine operators will need training to
assure they understand proximity
detection system functionality and any
maintenance requirements. This
commenter also stated that proper
installation of a proximity detection
system is critical for reliable
performance. Another commenter said
that a few hours of classroom
instruction and approximately one hour
of underground training for machine
operators has proven adequate and that
maintenance training requires about
four hours.
Based on MSHA experience with
testing of proximity detection systems,
proper functioning of a proximity
detection system is directly related to
the quality of the installation and
maintenance of the systems. Training
helps assure that the person performing
installation and maintenance of a
proximity detection system understands
the system well enough to perform tasks
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
54171
such as replacing and adjusting system
components, adjusting software, and
troubleshooting electrical connections.
Based on MSHA’s limited experience
with proximity detection systems on
continuous mining machines in
underground coal mines, MSHA
anticipates that operators would assign
miners to perform most maintenance
activities, but representatives of the
manufacturer may perform some
maintenance. Also, based on Agency
experience, operators would generally
arrange for proximity detection system
manufacturers to provide appropriate
training to miners for installation and
maintenance. Miners receiving training
from manufacturers’ representatives
would, in most cases, provide training
for other miners who become
responsible for installation and
maintenance duties at the mine. In
MSHA’s experience, many mines use
the train-the-trainer concept for
installation and maintenance activities
related to certain mining equipment.
MSHA solicits comments on this
proposed provision. Comments should
be specific and include alternatives,
rationale for suggested alternatives,
safety benefits to miners, technological
and economic feasibility considerations,
and supporting data.
3. Section 75.1732(c) Examination and
Checking
Proposed § 75.1732(c) would address
examination and checking of proximity
detection systems.
Proposed paragraph (c)(1) would
require that operators designate a person
who must perform a visual check of
machine-mounted components of the
proximity detection system to verify
that components are intact, that the
system is functioning properly, and take
action to correct defects: (i) At the
beginning of each shift when the
machine is to be used; (ii) immediately
prior to the time the machine is to be
operated if not in use at the beginning
of a shift; or (iii) within one hour of a
shift change if the shift change occurs
without an interruption in production.
Several commenters stated that a
proximity detection system should be
checked at the beginning of each shift to
verify it is functioning properly. NIOSH
commented that the machine operator
should have a set of procedures to
assess the system at the start of each
shift.
A visual check of machine-mounted
components of the proximity detection
system to verify that components are
intact would help assure that proximity
detection systems are functioning
properly before machines are operated.
Some components of a proximity
E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM
31AUP1
Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
54172
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2011 / Proposed Rules
detection system may be mounted on
the outer surfaces of a machine and
could be damaged when the machine
contacts a rib or heavy material falls
against the machine. An appropriate
check would include a visual inspection
to identify if machine-mounted
components are damaged and observing
that the system provides a visual signal
and that the system is functioning
properly so that action can be taken to
correct defects.
The proposed visual check would
supplement the proposed system design
requirement in proposed paragraph
(b)(4) that would require that the
proximity detection system prevent
movement of the machine if the system
is not functioning properly. The system
may not be able to detect all types of
damage such as detached field
generators which could affect proper
function. Surface-mounted components
can be exposed to harsh conditions such
as contact with ribs and other machines.
The proposed visual check would help
assure that proximity detection system
components are oriented correctly and
mounted properly on the machine.
In most cases, MSHA anticipates that
the person making the on-shift dust
control parameter check required under
existing § 75.362(a)(2) would also make
the proposed visual check of the
proximity detection system on the
continuous mining machine. The person
making the on-shift dust control
parameter check inspects the water
sprays, bits, and lugs on the continuous
mining machine and would likely be the
designated person making the proposed
visual check of the machine-mounted
components of the proximity detection
system. MSHA also anticipates that both
checks would be performed at the same
time.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2) would
require that miner-wearable components
be checked for proper operation at the
beginning of each shift that the
component is to be used and that
defects would be required to be
corrected before the component is used.
Several commenters on the RFI stated
that the miner-wearable component
should be checked at the beginning of
each shift and that minimal training is
necessary for miners to learn this task.
The proposed requirement that minerwearable components be checked for
proper operation at the beginning of
each shift that the component is to be
used would help assure that the miner
is protected before getting near a
machine. MSHA anticipates that under
the proposed rule, a miner would
visually check the miner-wearable
component to see that it is not damaged
and has sufficient power to work for the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:28 Aug 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
duration of the shift. MSHA intends that
this check would be similar to the check
that a miner performs of a cap lamp
prior to the beginning of a shift. Mine
operators are required to provide new
task training, under part 48 of 30 CFR,
for miners who would be checking the
components. If any defect is found, the
proposal would require it to be
corrected before using the component.
Correcting defects before the component
is used is intended to assure the system
functions properly and helps prevent
miners’ exposure to pinning, crushing,
and striking hazards.
Proposed paragraph (c)(3) would
require that the operator designate a
qualified person under existing § 75.153
Electrical work; qualified person, to
examine proximity detection systems at
least every seven days for the
requirements in proposed paragraphs
(b)(1)–(b)(5) of this section. Defects in
the proximity detection system would
be required to be corrected before the
machine is returned to service.
Several commenters stated that a
trained (qualified maintenance) person
should examine the basic functionality
of the proximity detection system
weekly by checking zone sizes, system
communication, and warning signals. A
commenter stated that the proximity
detection system must be examined at
regular maintenance intervals and each
time there has been a modification to
the machines or working environment.
Another commenter stated that the
person evaluating a proximity detection
system should fully understand what
the system is intended to do and how
electromagnetic field technology
operates. This same commenter stated
that a properly designed proximity
detection system should not require
periodic testing.
Proximity detection systems are
comprised of complex electrical
components. The requirement under
proposed paragraph (c)(3) would help
assure that the person examining the
proximity detection system at least
every seven days has the knowledge and
skills to understand the purpose of
every component, and the hazards
associated with failure of the system.
The examination in proposed paragraph
(c)(3) would be more comprehensive
than the checks under proposed
paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this
section. MSHA anticipates that the
proposed examination would occur
while the machine is not in service.
MSHA anticipates the examination of
machines with a proximity detection
system would be performed in
conjunction with the examination
requirements under existing § 75.512
Electric equipment; examination, testing
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and maintenance. The examination in
proposed paragraph (c)(3), like the
examination required under existing
§ 75.512, would assure that the electric
equipment has not deteriorated into an
unsafe condition and the equipment
operates properly. The designated
qualified person would examine the
proximity detection system for the
requirements in proposed paragraphs
(b)(1) through (b)(5).
Under the proposal, defects in the
proximity detection system would be
required to be corrected before the
machine is returned to service.
Correcting defects before the machine is
returned to service assures the system is
functioning properly and helps prevent
miners’ exposures to pinning, crushing,
and striking hazards.
MSHA solicits comments on the
requirements in proposed paragraph (c)
of this section. Comments should be
specific and include alternatives,
rationale for suggested alternatives,
safety benefits to miners, technological
and economic feasibility considerations,
and supporting data.
4. Section 75.1732(d) Certification and
Records
Proposed § 75.1732(d) would address
certification and records requirements
for proximity detection systems.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1) would
require that: (1) The operator make a
certification at the completion of the
check required under proposed
paragraph (c)(1) of this section; (2) a
certified person specified under existing
§ 75.100 certify by initials, date, and
time that the check was conducted; and
(3) defects found as a result of the check
in (c)(1) of this section, including
corrective actions and date of corrective
action, be recorded. Making records of
defects and corrective actions provides
a history of the defects documented at
the mine to alert miners, representatives
of miners, mine management and
MSHA of recurring problems. The
certification in proposed paragraph
(c)(1) would assure compliance and
miners on the section could confirm
that the required check was made. In
most cases, MSHA anticipates that the
person making the certification required
under existing § 75.362(g)(2) would also
make this certification. MSHA also
anticipates that the certifications would
be performed at the same time.
Consistent with proposed paragraph
(d)(1), proposed paragraph (d)(2) would
require that defects found as a result of
the check in (c)(2) of this section,
including corrective actions and date of
corrective action, be recorded. A
certification of the check for proper
operation of miner-wearable
E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM
31AUP1
Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2011 / Proposed Rules
components that would be required
under proposed paragraph (c)(2) is not
necessary because miners can readily
check to confirm that the component is
working.
MSHA solicits comments on whether
the defects and corrective actions in
proposed paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2)
should be recorded. Comments are
requested on whether the check for the
miner-wearable component that would
be required in proposed paragraph (c)(2)
should be certified. Comments should
be specific and include alternatives,
rationale for suggested alternatives,
safety benefits to miners, technological
and economic feasibility considerations,
and supporting data.
Proposed paragraph (d)(3) would
require that: (1) The operator make and
retain records at the completion of the
examination under proposed paragraph
(c)(3) of this section; (2) the qualified
person conducting the examination
would record and certify by signature
and date that the examination was
conducted; and a description of any
defects and corrective actions and the
date of corrective actions would be
recorded. Making records of defects and
corrective actions would provide a
history of the defects documented at the
mine to alert miners, representatives of
miners, mine management and MSHA
of recurring problems. MSHA believes
that this proposed certification is
necessary to assure compliance.
Proposed paragraph (d)(4) would
require that the operator make and
retain records of the persons trained in
the installation and maintenance of
proximity detection systems under
proposed paragraph (b)(6) of this
section. MSHA believes that this
proposed record is necessary to assure
that there is evidence that persons
assigned to install and perform
maintenance on proximity detection
systems have been trained. MSHA does
not anticipate that mine operators
would need to make and retain records
of training for proximity detection
system manufacturers’ employees who
install or perform maintenance on their
systems.
Proposed paragraph (d)(5) would
require the operator to maintain records
in a secure book or electronically in a
secure computer system not susceptible
to alteration. The records of checks,
examinations, repairs, and training
required under proposed paragraphs
(d)(1)–(d)(4) of this section would be
required to be in a book designed to
prevent the insertion of additional pages
or the alteration of previously entered
information in the record. Based on
MSHA’s experience with other safety
and health records, the Agency believes
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:28 Aug 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
that records should be maintained so
that they cannot be altered. In addition,
electronic storage of information and
access through computers is
increasingly a common business
practice in the mining industry. This
proposed provision would permit the
use of electronically stored records
provided they are secure, not
susceptible to alteration, able to capture
the information and signatures required,
and are accessible to the representative
of miners and MSHA. MSHA believes
that electronic records meeting these
criteria are practical and as reliable as
paper records. MSHA also believes that
once records are properly completed
and reviewed, mine management can
use them to evaluate whether the same
conditions or problems, if any, are
recurring, and whether corrective
measures are effective. Care must be
taken in the use of electronic records to
assure that the secure computer system
will not allow information to be
overwritten after being entered.
Proposed paragraph (d)(6) would
require that the operator retain records
for at least one year and make them
available for inspection by authorized
representatives of the Secretary and
representatives of miners. This would
apply to the records required under
proposed paragraphs (d)(1)–(d)(4) of this
section. MSHA believes that keeping
records for one year provides a history
of the conditions documented at the
mine to alert miners, representatives of
miners, mine management, and MSHA
of recurring problems.
MSHA solicits comments on the
requirements in proposed paragraph (d)
of this section. Comments should be
specific and include alternatives,
rationale for suggested alternatives,
safety benefits to miners, technological
and economic feasibility considerations,
and supporting data.
5. Section 75.1732(e) New Technology
Proposed § 75.1732(e) would provide
that mine operators or manufacturers
may apply to MSHA for acceptance of
a proximity detection system that
incorporates new technology. It would
provide that MSHA may accept a
proximity detection system if it is as
safe as those which meet the
requirements of this proposed rule.
NIOSH indicated in its comments on
the RFI that it is in the process of
developing a prototype system that
pinpoints the location of the operator, or
other workers, in the proximity of a
remote controlled continuous mining
machine. By doing so, the system is
permitted to make decisions, such as
disabling specific movements of the
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
54173
machine, while allowing the machine to
continue to operate.
Consistent with MSHA’s approach to
new technology under existing 30 CFR
part 7 Testing by applicant or third
party, and existing 30 CFR 18.20(b), this
proposed provision would allow for
proximity detection systems that
include improved technological
capability.
This proposed provision would
permit MSHA to consider proximity
detection technology that may not meet
the provisions in this proposal but that
does meet the Agency’s intent for
reducing pinning, crushing, and striking
accidents. For example, if a
manufacturer develops a technology
that can assure at least the same degree
of protection as would be provided by
this proposal, MSHA could consider
such a system under this proposed
provision.
In order to install a proximity
detection system that does not conform
to the requirements in this proposed
rule, a mine operator or manufacturer
would have to apply to the Chief of the
A&CC, 765 Technology Drive,
Triadelphia, West Virginia 26059. The
mine operator or manufacturer would
have to provide the rationale for
requesting acceptance of a system. The
A&CC would evaluate the proximity
detection system to determine if it is as
safe as a system meeting the
requirements of this proposed rule. The
evaluation might include an assessment
of the technology used; the reliability of
the system; the ability to stop movement
of the machine before pinning, crushing,
or striking a miner; the capability of
providing early warning notification
before stopping movement; the ability of
the system to work while protecting
multiple miners; and an assessment of
the system’s compatibility with other
electrical systems in the mine.
At the conclusion of the A&CC
evaluation, the Center Chief would issue
a letter to the mine operator or
manufacturer stating that the system is
as safe as a system meeting the
requirements of this proposed rule or
explain why the system was found not
acceptable. This letter would include
any conditions of use that must be
maintained to assure appropriate safety.
Proposed § 75.1732(e) would apply
when a mine operator wants to use a
new technology proximity detection
system.
MSHA solicits comments on this
proposed provision. Comments should
be specific and include alternatives,
rationale for suggested alternatives,
safety benefits to miners, technological
and economic feasibility considerations,
and supporting data.
E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM
31AUP1
54174
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2011 / Proposed Rules
III. Preliminary Regulatory Economic
Analysis
A. Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and
13563
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct agencies to assess all costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
effects, distributive impacts, and
equity). Executive Order 13563
emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of
reducing costs, of harmonizing rules,
and of promoting flexibility. To comply
with these Executive Orders, MSHA has
prepared a Preliminary Regulatory
Economic Analysis (PREA) for the
proposed rule. The PREA contains
supporting data and explanation for the
summary materials presented in this
preamble, including the covered mining
industry, costs and benefits, feasibility,
small business impacts, and paperwork.
The PREA can be accessed
electronically at https://www.msha.gov/
REGSINF5.HTM or https://
www.regulations.gov. A copy of the
PREA can be obtained from MSHA’s
Office of Standards, Regulations and
Variances at the address in the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
MSHA requests comments on all
estimates of costs and benefits presented
in this preamble and in the PREA, and
on the data and assumptions the Agency
used to develop estimates.
Under E.O. 12866, a significant
regulatory action is one meeting any of
a number of specified conditions,
including the following: Having an
annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more, creating a serious
inconsistency or interfering with an
action of another agency, materially
altering the budgetary impact of
entitlements or the rights of entitlement
recipients, or raising novel legal or
policy issues. MSHA has determined
that this proposed rule would be a
significant regulatory action because it
raises novel legal and policy issues.
Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Population at Risk
The proposed rule would apply to all
underground coal mines in the United
States. For the 12 months ending
January 2010, there were 424
underground coal mines employing
approximately 47,000 miners and
contractors (excluding office workers).
MSHA estimates that total 2009
underground coal revenue was $18.5
billion.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:28 Aug 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
C. Benefits
The proposed rule would significantly
improve safety protections for
underground coal miners by reducing
their risk of being crushed, pinned, or
struck by continuous mining machines.
MSHA reviewed the Agency’s
investigation reports for all powered
haulage and machinery accidents that
occurred during the 1984 through 2010
(27 years) period and determined that
the use of proximity detection systems
could have prevented 30 fatalities (1 per
year) and 220 non-fatal injuries (8 per
year) involving pinning, crushing, or
striking accidents with mobile
machines. This count of fatalities and
injuries from pinning, crushing, or
striking accidents excludes fatalities and
injuries that could not have been
prevented by proximity detection
systems on continuous mining
machines such as when a roof or rib fall
pins a miner against a mobile machine
or a mobile machine strikes and pushes
another machine into a miner. Based on
MSHA’s historical data, MSHA also
estimates that approximately two
percent of the non-fatal injuries would
be permanent partial or total disability
injuries.
To estimate the monetary values of
the reductions in fatalities and non-fatal
injuries, MSHA performed an analysis
of the imputed value of injuries and
fatalities prevented based on a
willingness-to-pay approach. This
approach relies on the theory of
compensating wage differentials (e.g.,
the wage premium paid to workers to
accept the risk associated with various
jobs) in the labor market. A number of
studies have shown a correlation
between higher job risk and higher
wages, suggesting that employees
demand monetary compensation in
return for incurring a greater risk of
injury or fatality.
Viscusi & Aldy (2003) conducted an
analysis of several studies (i.e., metaanalysis) that use a willingness-to-pay
methodology to estimate the imputed
value of life-saving programs. This
meta-analysis found that each fatality
prevented was valued at approximately
$7 million and each non-fatal injury was
valued at approximately $50,000 in
2000 dollars. Using the GDP Deflator
(U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis,
2010), this yields an estimate in 2009
dollars of $8.7 million for each fatality
prevented and $62,000 for each nonfatal injury prevented. MSHA is using
the $8.7 million estimate for the value
of a fatality prevented and $62,000 for
each case of a non-fatal injury prevented
(other than permanent disability). This
value of a statistical life (VSL) estimate
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
is within the range of the substantial
majority of such estimates in the
literature ($1 million to $10 million per
statistical life), as discussed in OMB
Circular A–4 (OMB, 2003).
Some of the pinning, crushing, or
striking accidents caused permanent
disability. Given the significant lifechanging consequences of a permanent
partial or total disability, MSHA does
not believe that using the value
estimated for a typical non-fatal injury
is appropriate. Instead, MSHA based the
value of a permanent partial or total
disability prevented on the work of
Magat, Viscusi, and Huber (1996),
which estimated values for both a nonfatal lymph cancer prevented and a nonfatal nerve disease prevented. The
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) used this
approach in the Final Economic
Analysis (FEA) supporting its
hexavalent chromium final rule, and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
used this approach in its Stage 2
Disinfectants and Disinfection
Byproducts water rule (EPA, 2003).
Although permanent partial or total
disabilities are neither non-fatal cancers
nor nerve diseases, MSHA believes that
they have a similar impact on the
quality of life and would thus result in
similar valuations. The Magat, Viscusi &
Huber (1996) study estimates the value
of preventing a non-fatal lymph cancer
at 58.3 percent of the value of
preventing a fatality. Similarly, they
estimate the value of preventing a nonfatal nerve disease at 40.0 percent of the
value of preventing a fatality. Of the two
diseases valued in this study, MSHA
believes that a disability resulting from
injury more closely resembles the
consequences of a nerve disease than
the consequences of a non-fatal cancer.
For example, loss of strength, inability
to move easily, and constant pain are
three main consequences of nerve
disease that are similar to major
consequences caused by a disability
from a pinning, crushing, or striking
injury. Accordingly, MSHA estimates
the value of preventing a permanent
disability as approximately equal to the
value of preventing a nerve disease.
MSHA estimates the value of a
permanent partial or total disability
prevented to be $3.5 million ($3.5
million = 40 percent of $8.7 million).
MSHA solicits comments on its
monetized value for permanent
disability injuries.
Although MSHA is using the
willingness-to-pay approach as the basis
for monetizing the expected benefits of
the proposed rule, the Agency does so
with several reservations, given the
methodological difficulties involved in
E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM
31AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2011 / Proposed Rules
estimating the compensating wage
differentials (Hintermann, Alberini, and
Markandya, 2008). Furthermore, these
estimates pooled across different
industries may not capture the unique
circumstances faced by coal miners. For
example, some have suggested that VSL
models be disaggregated to account for
different levels of risk, as might occur in
coal mining (Sunstein, 2004). In
addition, coal miners may have few
employment options and in some cases
only one local employer. These near-
54175
to $10.7 million by the third year, and
remain at $10.7 million every year
thereafter (see Table 4).
MSHA developed the estimates in
Table 4 by multiplying the number of
fatalities and non-fatal injuries that
would be prevented by the proposed
rule by the monetized value of each
adverse effect [$124,208 for a non-fatal
injury (0.9818 × $62,000 + 0.0182 ×
$3,480,000) and $8.7 million for a
fatality].
monopsony or monopsony labor market
conditions may depress wages below
those in a more competitive labor
market.
MSHA recognizes that monetizing the
value of a statistical life is difficult and
involves uncertainty and imprecision.
In the future, MSHA plans to work with
other agencies to refine the approach
taken in this proposed rule.
MSHA estimates that the annual
benefits from the proposed rule would
be $1.6 million in the first year, increase
TABLE 4—MONETIZED ANNUAL VALUE OF FATALITIES AND NON-FATAL INJURIES PREVENTED BY THE PROPOSED RULE
[2009 Dollars]
Benefit from
preventing nonfatal injuries
Year
Year 1 ..............................................................................................................................
Year 2 ..............................................................................................................................
Years 3+ ..........................................................................................................................
More detailed information about how
MSHA estimated benefits is available in
the Preliminary Regulatory Economic
Analysis (PREA) supporting this
proposed rule. The PREA is available on
MSHA’s Web site, at https://
www.msha.gov/REGSINF5.HTM and
https://www.regulations.gov.
Benefit from
preventing
fatalities
$151,810
809,652
1,012,065
D. Compliance Costs
This section presents MSHA’s
estimates of costs that would be
incurred by underground coal operators
to comply with the proposed rule. These
costs are based on the assessment by
MSHA staff of the most likely actions
that would be necessary to comply with
the proposed rule. MSHA estimates that
$1,450,000
7,733,333
9,666,667
Total benefit
$1,601,810
8,542,985
10,678,732
the present value of the capital costs of
the proposed rule over the 18 month
phase-in period discounted at a 7
percent rate would be $36.3 million.
The yearly costs would gradually
increase from $4.1 million in the first
year to $8.2 million in the second year
and every year thereafter, as the
requirements are phased in. See Table 5.
TABLE 5—SUMMARY OVER THREE YEARS OF PHASED-IN CAPITAL COST, ANNUALIZED CAPITAL COST, ANNUAL COST, AND
YEARLY COST OF PROPOSED RULE
One-time cost of
newly phased-in
PDS
Year
Annualized
one-time cost of
newly phased-in
PDS a
Annual cost of
newly phased-in
PDS
$15,934,628
21,793,850
0
$2,897,443
3,094,727
0
$1,228,635
972,001
0
Year 1 ..............................................................
Year 2 ..............................................................
Years 3+ ..........................................................
Yearly cost of
previously
phased-in PDS
$0
4,126,078
8,192,806
Yearly cost b
$4,126,078
8,192,806
8,192,806
a Annualized
One-Time Cost is Capital Cost amortized at a 7 percent discount rate.
Cost is the sum of Annualized One-Time Cost of Newly Phased-In PDS, Annual Cost of Newly Phased-In PDS, and Yearly Cost of
Previously Phased-In PDS.
b Yearly
Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
E. Net Benefits
This section presents a summary of
estimated benefits and costs of the
proposed rule for informational
purposes only. Under the Mine Act,
MSHA is not required to use estimated
net benefits as the basis for its decision.
The estimated yearly costs exceed the
estimated yearly benefits in the first
year, but in the second and subsequent
years the expected benefits exceed the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:28 Aug 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
expected cost. However, MSHA does
not believe that this presents a complete
indication of the net benefits of the
proposed rule (see Table 6). The Agency
anticipates several benefits from the
proposed rule which were not
quantified due to data limitations. For
example, MSHA anticipates that the
proposed rule would result in
additional savings to mine operators by
avoiding the production delays typically
associated with mine accidents.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Pinning, crushing, or striking accidents
can disrupt production at a mine during
the time it takes to remove the injured
miners, investigate the cause of the
accident, and clean up the accident site.
Such delays can last for a shift or more.
Factors such as lost production,
damaged equipment, and other
miscellaneous expenses could result in
significant costs to operators; however,
MSHA has not quantified these savings
due to the imprecision of the data.
E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM
31AUP1
54176
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 6—CUMULATED BENEFITS, COSTS, AND NET BENEFITS (NET COSTS) BY YEAR
[2009 Dollars]
Year
Yearly benefits
Year 1 ............................................................................................................................
Year 2 ............................................................................................................................
Years 3+ ........................................................................................................................
Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
IV. Feasibility
MSHA has concluded that the
requirements of the proposed rule are
both technologically and economically
feasible, and that the 18 month phasein period would facilitate
implementation of the proposed rule.
A. Technological Feasibility
MSHA concludes that the proposed
rule is technologically feasible. Mine
operators are capable of equipping
continuous mining machines with a
proximity detection system in
accordance with the compliance dates.
The technology necessary to perform the
proximity detection function required
by the proposed rule on continuous
mining machines already exists and is
commercially available for underground
coal mines.
MSHA has experience with
manufacturers of proximity detection
systems in the United States and mine
operators who have installed proximity
detection systems on continuous mining
machines in underground coal mines.
MSHA has approved three proximity
detection systems under existing
regulations for permissibility in 30 CFR
part 18, and at least 35 continuous
mining machines equipped with
proximity detection systems are
operating in underground coal mines in
the United States. MSHA has tested and
observed proximity detection systems
providing warning and shutdown
activation as expected on continuous
mining machines in several
underground coal mines. MSHA has
also observed continuous mining
machines equipped with proximity
detection systems in South Africa and
reviewed comments on the RFI stating
that proximity detection systems are
used in other countries.
The process of equipping continuous
mining machines with proximity
detection systems takes time to
complete. MSHA would provide
operators sufficient time to equip these
machines and train miners.
B. Economic Feasibility
MSHA has traditionally used a
revenue screening test—whether the
yearly compliance costs of a regulation
are less than 1 percent of revenues, or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:28 Aug 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
$1,601,810
8,542,985
10,678,732
are negative (e.g., provide net cost
savings)—to establish presumptively
that compliance with the regulation is
economically feasible for the mining
industry. Based upon this test, MSHA
has concluded that the requirements of
the proposed rule would be
economically feasible. For the purpose
of this analysis MSHA analyzed the
impact of the costs in the second year,
as this year represents the yearly cost
after all of the requirements of the
proposed rule would be in effect.
The yearly compliance cost to
underground coal mine operators
beginning in the second year would be
$8.2 million. This represents
approximately 0.04 percent of total
annual revenue of $18.5 billion ($8.2
million costs/$18.5 billion revenue) for
all underground coal mines. Since the
estimated compliance cost is below one
percent of estimated annual revenue,
MSHA concludes that compliance with
the provisions of the proposed rule
would be economically feasible for the
underground coal industry.
V. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act (SBREFA), MSHA has
analyzed the compliance cost impact of
the proposed rule on small entities.
Based on that analysis, MSHA certifies
that the proposed rule would not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities in
terms of compliance costs. Therefore,
the Agency is not required to develop an
initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
The factual basis for this certification
is presented in full in Chapter VII of the
PREA and in summary form below.
A. Definition of a Small Mine
Under the RFA, in analyzing the
impact of a rule on small entities,
MSHA must use the Small Business
Administration’s (SBA’s) definition for a
small entity, or after consultation with
the SBA Office of Advocacy, establish
an alternative definition for the mining
industry by publishing that definition in
the Federal Register for notice and
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Yearly costs
$4,126,078
8,192,806
8,192,806
Net benefits
(net costs)
($2,524,269)
350,179
2,485,926
comment. MSHA has not established an
alternative definition, and is required to
use SBA’s definition. The SBA defines
a small entity in the mining industry as
an establishment with 500 or fewer
employees.
MSHA has also examined the impact
of the proposed rule on mines with
fewer than 20 employees, which MSHA
and the mining community have
traditionally referred to as ‘‘small
mines.’’ These small mines differ from
larger mines not only in the number of
employees, but also in economies of
scale in material produced, in the type
and amount of production equipment,
and in supply inventory. Therefore,
their costs of complying with MSHA’s
rules and the impact of the agency’s
rules on them will also tend to be
different.
This analysis complies with the
requirements of the RFA for an analysis
of the impact on ‘‘small entities’’ while
continuing MSHA’s traditional
definition of ‘‘small mines.’’
B. Factual Basis for Certification
MSHA’s analysis of the economic
impact on ‘‘small entities’’ begins with
a ‘‘screening’’ analysis. The screening
compares the estimated costs of the
proposed rule for small entities to their
estimated revenues. When estimated
costs are less than one percent of
estimated revenues (for the size
categories considered), MSHA believes
it is generally appropriate to conclude
that there is no significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If estimated costs are equal to
or exceed one percent of revenues,
further analysis may be warranted.
Revenue for underground coal mines
is derived from data on coal prices and
tonnage. The average open market U.S.
sales price of underground coal for 2009
was $55.77 per ton. This average price
of underground coal for 2009 is from the
Department of Energy (DOE), Energy
Information Administration (EIA),
Annual Coal Report 2009, October 2010,
Table 28.
Total underground coal production in
2009 was approximately 5.2 million
tons for mines with 1–19 employees.
Multiplying tons by the 2009 price per
ton, 2009 underground coal revenue
E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM
31AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2011 / Proposed Rules
was $287 million for mines with 1–19
employees. Total underground coal
production in 2009 was approximately
242 million short tons for mines with 1–
500 employees. Multiplying tons by the
2009 price per ton, 2009 underground
coal revenue was $13.5 billion for mines
with 1–500 employees. Total
underground coal production in 2009
was approximately 332 million tons.
Multiplying tons by the 2009 price per
ton, total estimated revenue in 2009 for
underground coal production was $18.5
billion.
For the purpose of this analysis
MSHA analyzed the potential impact of
the costs in the second year, as this year
represents the yearly cost of the
proposed rule after all of the
requirements would be in effect. The
estimated yearly cost of the proposed
rule for underground coal mines with 1–
19 employees is approximately $0.7
million beginning in the second year,
which represents approximately 0.24
percent of annual revenues. MSHA
estimates that some mines might
experience costs somewhat higher than
the average per mine in their size
category while others might experience
lower costs.
When applying SBA’s definition of a
small mine, the estimated yearly cost of
the proposed rule for underground coal
mines with 1–500 employees is
approximately $7.5 million beginning in
the second year, which represents
approximately 0.06 percent of annual
revenue.
Based on this analysis, MSHA has
determined that the proposed rule
would not have a significant economic
impact in terms of compliance costs on
a substantial number of small
underground coal mines. MSHA has
certified that the proposed rule would
not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small mining
entities, as defined by SBA. MSHA has
provided, in the PREA accompanying
this proposed rule, a complete analysis
of the proposed cost impact on this
category of mines.
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
A. Summary
In the first three years the proposed
rule would be in effect, the mining
community would incur 2,582 annual
burden hours with related annual
burden costs of approximately $99,460,
and other annual costs related to the
information collection package of
approximately $18,517.
B. Procedural Details
The information collection package
for this proposed rule has been
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:28 Aug 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
submitted to OMB for review under 44
U.S.C. 3504, paragraph (h) of the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of
1995, as amended. For a detailed
summary of the burden hours and
related costs by provision, see the
information collection package
accompanying this proposed rule. A
copy of the information collection
package can be obtained from https://
www.msha.gov/regspwork.htm or https://
www.regulations.gov on the day
following publication of this notice in
the Federal Register or from the
Department of Labor by electronic mail
request to Michel Smyth at
smyth.michel@dol.gov (e-mail) or (202)
693–4129 (voice) or Roslyn Fontaine at
fontaine.roslyn@dol.gov or by phone
request to (202) 693–9440 (voice).
MSHA requests comments to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the
Agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology,
e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses.
Comments on the information
collection requirements should be sent
to both OMB and MSHA. Addresses for
both offices can be found in the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble. The
Department of Labor notes that, under
the PRA, affected parties do not have to
comply with the information collection
requirements in § 75.1732 until the
Department of Labor publishes a notice
in the Federal Register that they have
been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). A
delayed implementation of information
collection requirements would not affect
the implementation of the underlying
substantive requirements.
The total information collection
burden is summarized as follows:
Title of Collection: Proximity
Detection Systems.
OMB Control Number: 1219–NEW
NUMBER.
Affected Public: Private SectorBusinesses or other for-profits.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
54177
Estimated Number of Respondents:
433 respondents.
Estimated Number of Responses:
565,613 responses.
Estimated Annual Burden Hours:
2,582 hours.
Estimated Annual Cost Related to
Burden Hours: $99,460.
Estimated Other Annual Costs
Related to the Information Collection
Package: $18,517.
VII. Other Regulatory Considerations
A. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995
MSHA has reviewed the proposed
rule under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et
seq.). MSHA has determined that the
proposed rule would not include any
Federal mandate that may result in
increased expenditures by State, local,
or Tribal governments; nor would it
increase private sector expenditures by
more than $100 million in any one year
or significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. Accordingly, the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
requires no further Agency action or
analysis.
MSHA estimates that the costs of the
rule would vary by year, because of the
different phase-in periods. The cost
within each year is the sum of one-time
costs of newly phased-in proximity
detection systems and the annual cost of
all phased-in systems. MSHA estimates
the rule would cost approximately:
$17.2 million ($15,934,628 +
$1,228,635) in the first year, $24 million
($21,793,850 + $1,228,635 + $972,001)
in the second year, and $2.2 million
($1,228,635 + $972,001) in each
subsequent year. Since the proposed
rule would not cost over $100 million
in any one year, the proposed rule
would not be a major rule under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995.
B. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
The proposed rule does not have
‘‘federalism implications’’ because it
would not ‘‘have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.’’
Accordingly, under E.O. 13132, no
further Agency action or analysis is
required.
C. The Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act of
1999: Assessment of Federal
Regulations and Policies on Families
Section 654 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM
31AUP1
54178
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Act of 1999 (5 U.S.C. 601 note) requires
agencies to assess the impact of Agency
action on family well-being. MSHA has
determined that the proposed rule
would have no effect on family stability
or safety, marital commitment, parental
rights and authority, or income or
poverty of families and children.
Accordingly, MSHA certifies that this
proposed rule would not impact family
well-being.
D. Executive Order 12630: Government
Actions and Interference With
Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights
The proposed rule would not
implement a policy with takings
implications. Accordingly, under E.O.
12630, no further Agency action or
analysis is required.
E. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice
Reform
The proposed rule was written to
provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct and was carefully
reviewed to eliminate drafting errors
and ambiguities, so as to minimize
litigation and undue burden on the
Federal court system. Accordingly, the
proposed rule would meet the
applicable standards provided in
section 3 of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice
Reform.
F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
The proposed rule would have no
adverse impact on children.
Accordingly, under E.O. 13045, no
further Agency action or analysis is
required.
Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This proposed rule does not have
‘‘Tribal implications’’ because it would
not ‘‘have substantial direct effects on
one or more Indian Tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal
government and Indian Tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian Tribes.’’
Accordingly, under E.O. 13175, no
further Agency action or analysis is
required.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:28 Aug 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
Executive Order 13211 requires
agencies to publish a statement of
energy effects when a rule has a
significant energy action that adversely
affects energy supply, distribution or
use. MSHA has reviewed this proposed
rule for its energy effects because the
proposed rule would apply to the
underground coal mining sector.
Because this proposed rule would result
in maximum yearly costs of
approximately $8.2 million to the
underground coal mining industry,
relative to annual revenues of $18.5
billion in 2009, MSHA has concluded
that it would not be a significant energy
action because it is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.
Accordingly, under this analysis, no
further Agency action or analysis is
required.
Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No.
2007–146, RI 9672, 2007.
Schiffbauer, W. H. ‘‘An Active Proximity
Warning System for Surface and
Underground Mining Applications,’’ Min
Eng, 54(12):40–48, 2002.
U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and
Health Administration, ‘‘Program Policy
Manual, Vol. V—Coal Mines, Criteria—
Mantrips,’’ October 2003 (Release V–34),
pp. 126 and 127.
U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and
Health Administration, ‘‘Proximity
Protection System Specification.’’
October 4, 2004.
U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and
Health Administration, Request for
Information. ‘‘Proximity Detection
Systems for Underground Mines,’’
Federal Register, Vol. 75, pg. 2009,
February 1, 2010.
U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and
Health Administration. ‘‘Preliminary
Regulatory Economic Analysis for
Proximity Detection Systems for
Continuous Mining Machines in
Underground Coal Mines, Proposed Rule
(RIN 1219–AB65),’’ https://
www.msha.gov/rea.HTM, August, 2011.
I. Executive Order 13272: Proper
Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking
MSHA has reviewed the proposed
rule to assess and take appropriate
account of its potential impact on small
businesses, small governmental
jurisdictions, and small organizations.
MSHA has determined and certified that
the proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 75
VIII. References
Bartels, J.R., D.H. Ambrose, S.G. Gallagher.
‘‘Analyzing Factors Influencing StruckBy Accidents of a Moving Mining
Machine by Using Motion Capture and
DHM Simulations,’’ SAE Int J Passeng
Cars, Electron Electr Syst, 1(1):559–604,
April 2009.
Dransite, Jerry, G. Clark, B. Warnock, D.
Wease. ‘‘Remotely Controlled Mining
Machinery Study,’’ MSHA Approval and
Certification Center, August 3, 1998.
Rasche, Tilman. ‘‘Bowtie Analysis of Vehicle
Collision Accidents—a Case for
Proximity Detection and Vehicle
Collision Avoidance Systems,’’
Queensland, Australia: Department of
Employment, Economic Development
and Innovation, 2009.
Ruff, TM. ‘‘Recommendations for evaluating
and implementing proximity warning
systems on surface mining equipment,’’
Spokane, WA: U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, National
Institute for Occupational Safety and
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Mine safety and health, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Underground coal mines.
Dated: August 25, 2011.
Joseph A. Main,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety
and Health.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble and under the authority of the
Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of
1977, as amended, MSHA is proposing
to amend chapter I of title 30 of the
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 75—MANDATORY SAFETY
STANDARDS—UNDERGROUND COAL
MINES
1. The authority citation for part 75
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811.
2. Add § 75.1732 to subpart R to read
as follows:
§ 75.1732
Proximity detection systems.
Operators shall install proximity
detection systems on certain mobile
machines.
(a) Machines covered. Operators must
equip continuous mining machines
(except full-face continuous mining
machines) with a proximity detection
system in accordance with the following
dates.
E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM
31AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Machine type
November 30, 2011 ............
February 28, 2013 ..............
Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Compliance date
Continuous Mining Machines (except full-face continuous mining machines) ....
Continuous Mining Machines (except full-face continuous mining machines) ....
(b) Requirements for proximity
detection systems. A proximity
detection system must:
(1) Cause a machine to stop no closer
than 3 feet from a miner except for a
miner who is:
(i) In the on-board operator’s
compartment; or
(ii) Remotely operating a continuous
mining machine while cutting coal or
rock, in which case, the proximity
detection system must cause the
machine to stop before contacting the
machine operator.
(2) Provide an audible or visual
warning signal, distinguishable from
other signals, when the machine is 5
feet and closer to a miner except for a
miner who is:
(i) In the on-board operator’s
compartment; or
(ii) Remotely operating a continuous
mining machine while cutting coal or
rock.
(3) Provide a visual signal on the
machine that indicates the system is
functioning properly;
(4) Prevent movement of the machine
if the system is not functioning
properly. However, a system that is not
functioning properly may allow
machine movement if an audible or
visual warning signal, distinguishable
from other signals, is provided during
movement. Such movement is permitted
only for purposes of relocating the
machine from an unsafe location for
repair;
(5) Be installed to prevent interference
with or from other electrical systems;
and
(6) Be installed and maintained by a
person trained in the installation and
maintenance of the system.
(c) Examination and checking.
Operators must:
(1) Designate a person who must
perform a visual check of machinemounted components of the proximity
detection system to verify that
components are intact, that the system
is functioning properly, and take action
to correct defects—
(i) At the beginning of each shift when
the machine is to be used;
(ii) Immediately prior to the time the
machine is to be operated if not in use
at the beginning of a shift; or
(iii) Within 1 hour of a shift change
if the shift change occurs without an
interruption in production.
(2) Check for proper operation of
miner-wearable components at the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:28 Aug 30, 2011
Jkt 223001
Date of manufacture
beginning of each shift that the
component is to be used. Defects must
be corrected before the component is
used.
(3) Designate a qualified person under
§ 75.153 to examine proximity detection
systems for the requirements in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this
section at least every 7 days. Defects in
the proximity detection system must be
corrected before the machine is returned
to service.
(d) Certification and records. The
operator must make and retain
certification and records as follows:
(1) At the completion of the check
required under paragraph (c)(1) of this
section, a certified person under
§ 75.100 must certify by initials, date,
and time that the check was conducted.
Defects found as a result of the check in
(c)(1) of this section, including
corrective actions and date of corrective
action, must be recorded.
(2) Defects found as a result of the
check in (c)(2) of this section, including
corrective actions and date of corrective
action, must be recorded.
(3) At the completion of the
examination required under paragraph
(c)(3) of this section, the qualified
person must record and certify by
signature and date that the examination
was conducted. Defects, including
corrective actions and date of corrective
action, must be recorded.
(4) Make a record of the persons
trained in the installation and
maintenance of proximity detection
systems required under paragraph (b)(6)
of this section.
(5) Maintain records in a secure book
or electronically in a secure computer
system not susceptible to alteration.
(6) Retain records for at least one year
and make them available for inspection
by authorized representatives of the
Secretary and representatives of miners.
(e) New technology. Mine operators or
manufacturers may apply to MSHA for
acceptance of a proximity detection
system that incorporates new
technology. MSHA may accept a
proximity detection system if it is as
safe as those which meet the
requirements of this section.
[FR Doc. 2011–22125 Filed 8–29–11; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–43–P
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
54179
After August 31, 2011.
On or before August 31, 2011.
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
39 CFR Parts 3001 and 3025
[Docket No. RM2011–13; Order No. 814]
Appeals of Post Office Closings
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
This document proposes
revisions to the Commission’s rules for
appeals of post office closings. The
existing rules are unnecessarily complex
and outmoded. The revisions update the
rules and shorten the appeal process.
They also provide a clearer explanation
of the appeal process, of how to
participate in that process, and of the
nature of the Commission’s review. The
Commission invites comments on the
proposed revisions.
DATES: Comments are due: October 3,
2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments
electronically by accessing the ‘‘Filing
Online’’ link in the banner at the top of
the Commission’s Web site (https://
www.prc.gov) or by directly accessing
the Commission’s Filing Online system
at https://www.prc.gov/prc-pages/filingonling/login.aspx. Commenters who
cannot submit their views electronically
should contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for advice on alternatives to
electronic filing.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel,
at 202–789–6820 (for proposal-related
information) or DocketAdmins@prc.gov
(for electronic filing assistance.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Advantages of the New Rules
III. Obsolete Practices
IV. New Postal Service Regulations
V. Appeals From Closings of Stations and
Branches
VI. Suspended Offices
VII. Section-by-Section Analysis
VIII. Conclusion
I. Introduction
Section 404(d)(5) of title 39, U.S.
Code, provides that when the Postal
Service makes a decision to close or
consolidate a post office, customers of
the post office may appeal the decision
to the Postal Regulatory Commission.
The Commission’s rules governing such
E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM
31AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 169 (Wednesday, August 31, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54163-54179]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22125]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration
30 CFR Part 75
RIN 1219-AB65
Proximity Detection Systems for Continuous Mining Machines in
Underground Coal Mines
AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of public hearings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is proposing
to require underground coal mine operators to equip continuous mining
machines (except full-face continuous mining machines) with proximity
detection systems. Miners working near continuous mining machines face
pinning, crushing, and striking hazards that have resulted, and
continue to result, in accidents involving life threatening injuries
and death. The proposal would strengthen the protections for miners by
reducing the potential for pinning, crushing, or striking accidents in
underground coal mines.
DATES: Comment date: All comments must be received or postmarked by
midnight Eastern Standard Time on November 14, 2011.
Compliance dates: See proposed compliance dates under the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
Hearing dates: Hearings will be held on October 18, 2011, October
20, 2011, and October 25, 2011, at the locations listed in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
ADDRESSES: Comments, requests to speak, and informational materials for
the rulemaking record may be sent to MSHA by any of the following
methods. Clearly identify all submissions in the subject line of the
message with ``RIN 1219-AB65''.
Federal E-Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
Facsimile: 202-693-9441.
Mail or Hand Delivery: MSHA, Office of Standards,
Regulations, and Variances, 1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2350, Arlington, VA
22209-3939. For hand delivery, sign in at the receptionist's desk on
the 21st floor.
Information Collection Requirements
Comments concerning the information collection requirements of this
proposed rule must be clearly identified with ``RIN 1219-AB65'' and
sent to both the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and MSHA.
Comments to OMB may be sent by mail addressed to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC
20503, Attn: Desk Officer for MSHA. Comments to MSHA may be transmitted
by any of the methods listed above in this section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roslyn B. Fontaine, Acting Director,
Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at
fontaine.roslyn@dol.gov (e-mail), 202-693-9440 (voice), or 202-693-9441
(facsimile).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
A. Availability of Information
B. Public Hearings
C. Information Collection Supporting Statement
D. Proposed Compliance Dates
II. Discussion of Proposed Rule
A. Background
B. Section-by-Section Analysis
III. Preliminary Regulatory Economic Analysis
A. Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 13563
B. Population at Risk
C. Benefits
D. Compliance Costs
E. Net Benefits
IV. Feasibility
A. Technological Feasibility
B. Economic Feasibility
V. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act
A. Definition of a Small Mine
B. Factual Basis for Certification
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
A. Summary
B. Procedural Details
VII. Other Regulatory Considerations
A. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
B. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
C. The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of
1999: Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families
D. Executive Order 12630: Government Actions and Interference
With Constitutionally Protected Property Rights
E. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
VIII. References
I. Introduction
A. Availability of Information
Public Comments: MSHA posts all comments without change, including
any personal information provided. Access comments electronically on
https://www.regulations.gov and on https://www.msha.gov/currentcomments.asp. Review comments 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.
E-mail notification: 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.
B. Public Hearings
MSHA will hold three public hearings on the proposed rule to
provide the public with an opportunity to present their views on this
rulemaking. The public hearings will begin at 9 a.m. MSHA is holding
the hearings on the following dates at the locations indicated:
[[Page 54164]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Location Contact No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 18, 2011..................... Embassy Suites, Denver, Downtown/ 303-592-1000.
Convention Center, 1420 Stout Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202.
October 20, 2011..................... Embassy Suites, Charleston, 300 Court 304-347-8700.
St., Charleston, WV 25301.
October 25, 2011..................... Courtyard Washington, Meadow Lands, 724-222-5620.
1800 Tanger Boulevard, Washington,
Pennsylvania 15301.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The hearings will begin with an opening statement from MSHA,
followed by an opportunity for members of the public to make oral
presentations. Persons do not have to make a written request to speak;
however, persons and organizations wishing to speak are encouraged to
notify MSHA in advance for scheduling purposes. MSHA requests that
parties making presentations at the hearings submit them no later than
five days prior to the hearing. Presentations and accompanying
documentation will be included in the rulemaking record.
The hearings will be conducted in an informal manner. Formal rules
of evidence and cross examination will not apply. The hearing panel may
ask questions of speakers and speakers may ask questions of the hearing
panel. Verbatim transcripts of the proceedings will be prepared and
made a part of the rulemaking record. Copies of the transcripts will be
available to the public. The transcripts may be viewed at https://www.regulations.gov or https://www.msha.gov/tscripts.htm.
C. Information Collection Supporting Statement
MSHA posts Information Collection Supporting Statements on https://www.regulations.gov and on MSHA's Web site at https://www.msha.gov/regspwork.htm. A copy of the information collection package is also
available from the Department of Labor by request to Michel Smyth at
smyth.michel@dol.gov (e-mail) or 202 693 4129 (voice); or from MSHA by
request to Roslyn Fontaine at fontaine.roslyn@dol.gov (e mail) or 202-
693-9440 (voice) or 202-693-9441 (facsimile).
D. Proposed Compliance Dates
Under the proposed rule, each underground coal mine operator would
be required to install proximity detection systems on continuous mining
machines based on the date of manufacture of the machine according to
the following schedule. MSHA considers the date of manufacture as the
date identified on the machine or otherwise provided by the
manufacturer.
1. By [Date 3 months after the publication date of the final rule]
for continuous mining machines (except full-face continuous mining
machines) manufactured after [date of publication of the final rule].
2. By February 28, 2013 for continuous mining machines (except
full-face continuous mining machines) manufactured on or before August
31, 2011.
Table 1--Proposed Rule Compliance Dates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of
Compliance date Machine type manufacture
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 months after the publication Continuous Mining After the
date of final rule. Machines (except full- publication
face continuous date of final
mining machines). rule.
18 months after the Continuous Mining On or before the
publication date of final Machines (except full- publication
rule. face continuous date of final
mining machines). rule.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Discussion of Proposed Rule
A. Background
This proposed rule is issued under section 101 of the Federal Mine
Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act), as amended. The proposed rule
would require mine operators to install proximity detection systems on
continuous mining machines in underground coal mines according to a
phased-in schedule for newly manufactured and existing equipment. It
would also establish performance and maintenance requirements for
proximity detection systems and require training for installation and
maintenance. The proposed requirements would strengthen protections for
miners by reducing the potential for pinning, crushing, or striking
fatalities and injuries to miners who work near continuous mining
machines.
Miners are exposed to hazards that are a result of working near
continuous mining machines in the confined space of an underground coal
mine. Working conditions in underground mines that contribute to these
hazards may include limited visibility, limited space around mobile
machines, and uneven and slippery ground conditions which may contain
debris.
MSHA has conducted a review of fatal and nonfatal pinning,
crushing, and striking accidents in underground coal mines involving
continuous mining machines to identify those that could have been
prevented by using a proximity detection system. Of the deaths in
underground coal mines from 1984 through 2010, MSHA estimates that 30
could have been prevented by installing proximity detection systems on
continuous mining machines. During this same time period, of all the
injuries due to pinning, crushing, and striking accidents in
underground coal mines, approximately 220 could have been prevented
with proximity detection systems installed on continuous mining
machines.
MSHA's analysis of fatalities and non-fatal accidents during the
1984 through 2010 period indicates that many of these accidents
occurred in confined areas in underground coal mines where a proximity
detection system could have warned the miners and stopped the machines
before the accident. Proximity detection systems are needed because
training and outreach initiatives alone have not prevented these
accidents and the systems can provide necessary protections for miners.
In 2004, MSHA introduced a special initiative to inform underground
coal mine operators and miners about the dangers of pinning, crushing,
or striking hazards. MSHA's outreach efforts included webcasts, special
alerts, videos, bulletins, and inspector-to-miner instruction. Despite
these efforts, pinning, crushing, and striking accidents still occur.
There were two fatalities and four injuries in
[[Page 54165]]
2010 where a continuous mining machine pinned, crushed, or struck a
miner. In 2011, a continuous mining machine operator was fatally
injured. The preliminary report of the accident states the operator was
pinned by the machine.
Proximity detection is a technology that uses electronic sensors to
detect motion or the location of one object relative to another.
Proximity detection systems can provide a warning and stop mobile
machines before a pinning, crushing, or striking accident occurs that
could result in injury or death to miners.
In 1998, MSHA evaluated accidents involving remote controlled
mining machines and determined that proximity detection systems have
the potential to prevent accidents that occur when the machine operator
or another miner gets too close to the machine (Dransite, 1998). MSHA
noted that if changes in work practices or machine design do not
prevent miners from being placed in unsafe locations, the Agency should
consider a requirement for proximity detection by means of signal
detectors with automatic machine shutdown. No MSHA-approved proximity
detection systems were commercially available for underground mines at
that time.
In 2002, following a series of fatal pinning, crushing, and
striking accidents, MSHA decided to work with the coal mining industry
to develop a proximity detection system. MSHA evaluated: (1) The Bureau
of Mines' Hazardous Area Signaling and Ranging Device (HASARD) system;
(2) the Nautilus, International ``Buddy System''; and (3) the
International Mining Technologies ``Mine Mate'' system. MSHA selected
the Nautilus, International ``Buddy System'' for testing because it
could be adapted to remote controlled continuous mining machines in the
least amount of time. MSHA first tested the system in July 2003. MSHA,
a mine operator, a machine manufacturer, and Nautilus, International
developed performance criteria for field testing the system (MSHA
Proximity Protection System Specification, October 4, 2004). MSHA
evaluated the system for permissibility under 30 CFR 18.82 and issued
an experimental permit on May 30, 2003. After several revisions, the
Agency field tested the system in March 2006 and determined that it met
the established performance criteria. While MSHA was testing the
Nautilus system, another manufacturer developed a similar system, the
Geosteering TramguardTM System, which MSHA tested in June
2005 under an experimental permit on a remote controlled continuous
mining machine. In November 2005, MSHA field tested the Geosteering
TramguardTM System in accordance with MSHA established
criteria and it performed successfully.
MSHA approved the Nautilus, International ``Buddy System'' and the
Geosteering TramguardTM System in 2006 and a third system,
the Matrix Design Group M3-1000 Proximity Monitoring System, in 2009,
under existing regulations for permissibility in 30 CFR part 18. These
approvals are intended to ensure that the systems will not introduce an
ignition hazard when operated in potentially explosive atmospheres.
MSHA's approval regulations under 30 CFR part 18 do not address how
systems will perform in reducing pinning, crushing, or striking
hazards.
The three MSHA-approved proximity detection systems operate using
electromagnetic technology. The Nautilus, International ``Buddy
System'' and the Strata Mining Products HazardAvert\TM\ System
(formerly the Geosteering Tramguard\TM\ System) require a miner to wear
a component that measures the strength of an electromagnetic field
generated by antennas strategically located on the machine. A
microprocessor onboard the machine is interconnected with the machine
control circuitry and communicates with the miner-wearable component.
The microprocessor sends a signal to activate a warning or stop machine
movement when the miner wearing the component is within a prescribed
distance of the machine.
The Matrix Design Group (now partnered with Joy Mining Machinery to
commercialize the system for continuous mining machines) M3-1000
Proximity Monitoring System operates in a similar manner but generates
the magnetic field around the miner-wearable component. In this case,
the machine is equipped with sensors that detect the magnetic field
around the miner. The sensors are connected to a microprocessor which
interprets the signals and communicates warning and stop commands to
the machine. MSHA did not participate in the development of Matrix
Design Group's proximity detection system for remote controlled
continuous mining machines because Matrix did not request assistance.
At least 35 remote controlled continuous mining machines in
underground coal mines in the United States are equipped with proximity
detection systems. MSHA monitors the installation and development of
these systems to maintain up-to-date information on the number of
proximity detection systems being used and the capabilities of the
various systems.
MSHA also evaluated the use of proximity detection systems in
underground mines in the Republic of South Africa (South Africa). MSHA
staff traveled to South Africa in April 2010 to observe the performance
of several proximity detection systems, including the Strata Safety
Products HazardAvert\TM\ System that was developed in the United
States. One of the mines visited began testing the Strata system in
2008 and, at the time of the MSHA visit, had equipped all mobile
machines on three complete underground coal mine sections with the
system. The mine is using the proximity detection system on remote
controlled continuous mining machines, shuttle cars, roof bolting
machines, feeder breakers, and load-haul-dump machines (scoops). In
addition to the Strata system, MSHA also observed the Booyco Collision
Warning System (CWS) being used on continuous mining machines. The
mining operations, conditions, and machines in underground coal mines
in South Africa are similar to those in underground coal mines in the
United States. The South African mines that MSHA visited are room and
pillar operations with approximately 10-foot high and 22-foot wide
entries.
The Strata Safety Products HazardAvert\TM\ System used in South
Africa is similar to the HazardAvert\TM\ System used in underground
coal mines in the United States. The HazardAvert\TM\ System for
continuous mining machines provides two zones. When a miner is within
the outer zone, an audible and visual signal is activated. When a miner
is within the inner zone, machine movement is stopped. The miner-
wearable component is incorporated into the cap lamp battery and
includes a warning buzzer and flashing LED that clips to the hardhat.
The Booyco system, observed in South Africa, provides warning
signals to miners and machine operators. It does not stop machine
movement. There are two zones associated with the Booyco system. When a
miner enters the outer zone, an audible and visual warning signal is
provided to the miner working near the machine. When a miner enters the
inner zone, an audible and visual warning signal is provided to both
the miner and the machine operator. This system could be modified to
stop machine movement. The Booyco system is not MSHA-approved and is
not being used in the United States.
In 2004, MSHA initiated a safety campaign to raise the mining
industry's awareness of pinning, crushing, and
[[Page 54166]]
striking hazards associated with remote controlled continuous mining
machines. This safety campaign was targeted to the underground coal
mining industry and included webcasts, special alerts, videos,
bulletins, and inspector-to-miner instruction. There were no fatalities
associated with continuous mining machines between 2005 and 2007
indicating the safety campaign may have had a positive impact on fatal
accidents. However, pinning, crushing, and striking accidents continue
to occur. Two fatalities in 2010 related to pinning, crushing, or
striking accidents involving a continuous mining machine could have
been prevented by using proximity detection systems.
The Agency published a Request for Information (RFI) on proximity
detection systems in the Federal Register on February 1, 2010 (75 FR
5009). The comment period closed on April 2, 2010. MSHA received
comments from: Mining associations; mining companies; manufacturers;
and state, Federal, and an international government entity.
Comments addressed specific questions regarding function,
application, training, costs, and benefits of proximity detection
systems to reduce the risk of accidents. Some commenters stated that
proximity detection systems are beneficial and can prevent pinning,
crushing, and striking accidents. Commenters stated that conditions in
the mining environment, including blocked visibility and limited space,
or simply the lack of sight due to limited light, can cause an accident
and that the only way to address these hazards is to equip mining
vehicles with a proximity detection system. A commenter stated that,
when it comes to safety, engineering barriers are required when the
behavior of everyone, whether due to the lack of training or taking
shortcuts, cannot be relied on. Several commenters stated that the
technology needs further development and testing.
RFI comments related to specific provisions of the proposed rule
are addressed in the section-by-section analysis.
B. Section-by-Section Analysis
The proposed rule would require underground coal mine operators to
equip continuous mining machines (except full-face continuous mining
machines) with proximity detection systems over an 18-month phase-in
period.
1. Section 75.1732(a) Machines Covered
Proposed Sec. 75.1732(a) would require operators to equip
continuous mining machines (except full-face continuous mining
machines) with a proximity detection system in accordance with the
following dates: 3 months after August 31, 2011 for machines
manufactured after August 31, 2011; and 18 months after August 31, 2011
for machines manufactured on or before August 31, 2011.
A commenter, in response to the RFI, stated that MSHA's approval
process does not include an evaluation of the system's functional
readiness to perform in the underground mine environment. This
commenter indicated that only a handful of mines have operational
experience with approved systems and that a thorough examination of the
operational readiness of these systems must be undertaken to address
safety issues before they are required. Several other commenters stated
that proximity detection systems have not proven reliable and that more
testing is needed. One of these commenters stated that establishing a
set distance from a miner at which a machine would shut down needs
further analysis due to its potential to force machine operators out of
previously safe areas into potentially less safe areas in order to
avoid shutdown.
In response to the RFI, a proximity detection system manufacturer
stated that it has experience with proximity detection systems on
remote controlled continuous mining machines in five coal mines in the
United States and on machines in mines within South Africa and
Australia. A representative of a South African mining company that uses
this system on continuous mining machines stated in its comments that
the system is very reliable. This South African mining company reported
that it did not have a single reliability problem over a period of 18
months. A second proximity detection system manufacturer stated that
its proximity detection system is installed on many types of
underground mobile machines in Canada and Australia and that there has
not been a serious injury or fatality reported on any machine using its
proximity detection system. A coal mine operator and a third
manufacturer commented jointly and stated that development of a
proximity detection system for remote controlled continuous mining
machines is still in the early stages and it is premature to consider
rulemaking for other types of mobile underground equipment. However,
this commenter also stated that applying proximity detection systems to
all mobile machines should be a ``long-term goal'' that could provide
safety benefits and that the coal mine operator plans to voluntarily
equip its entire fleet of remote controlled continuous mining machines
with proximity detection systems.
The proposed rule would require underground coal mine operators to
equip continuous mining machines (except full-face continuous mining
machines) with proximity detection systems. MSHA has determined that
continuous mining machines expose miners to dangers when working in
underground coal mines and that these machines have resulted in
injuries and fatalities to miners. Of the 70 fatalities resulting from
pinning, crushing, and striking accidents from 1984 through 2010 in
underground coal mines, 30 were associated with a continuous mining
machine. Use of proximity detection systems could have prevented these
accidents and the fatalities by stopping continuous mining machine
movement before miners were pinned, crushed, or struck by the machine.
Proposed Sec. 75.1732(a) would not require underground coal mine
operators to equip full-face continuous mining machines with a
proximity detection system. A full-face continuous mining machine
includes integral roof bolting equipment and develops the full width of
the mine entry in a single cut, generally without having to change its
location. Full-face continuous mining machines can be operated remotely
or by an operator positioned in a compartment on the machine (on-board
operator). Continuous mining machines that are not full-face machines
are place-changing continuous mining machines because they must change
places to cut the full width of an entry.
A commenter on the RFI stated that current proximity detection
system designs should only apply to remote controlled continuous mining
machines that are considered place-changing machines and not full-face
continuous mining machines. This same commenter indicated that a
proximity detection system for full-face continuous mining machines
would require a significantly more complicated design to accommodate
the miners who operate the roof and rib bolting equipment. Another
commenter on the RFI stated that an MSHA standard could address all
continuous mining machines except those with integral/satellite bolters
(full-face continuous mining machines.)
After a review of comments, accident data, and Agency experience,
MSHA is not proposing that proximity detection systems be required for
full-face continuous mining machines since they present fewer hazards
to miners. Full-face continuous mining machines involve less frequent
place-changing and repositioning, resulting in fewer pinning, crushing,
or striking hazards to
[[Page 54167]]
miners. MSHA is not aware of any fatal or nonfatal accidents involving
either remote controlled or on-board operated full-face continuous
mining machines that a proximity detection system could have prevented.
Also, MSHA does not have experience with proximity detection systems on
remote controlled or on-board operated full-face continuous mining
machines.
Except for full-face continuous mining machines, the proposed rule
would require proximity detection systems to be installed on both on-
board operated and remote controlled continuous mining machines. Remote
controlled continuous mining machines account for the greater number of
fatalities. Operators not in an operator's compartment and miners
working near the continuous mining machine are at risk from pinning,
crushing, and striking hazards. More accidents are associated with
remote controlled continuous mining machines because approximately 97%
of continuous mining machines are remote controlled and because the
machine operator is not protected from pinning, crushing, and striking
accidents by an on-board operator's compartment. However, on-board
operated continuous mining machines also present a pinning, crushing,
and striking hazard to miners other than the operator and would be
required to be equipped with proximity detection systems. On-board
operated continuous mining machines were involved in 2 of the 30
fatalities that could have been prevented by use of a proximity
detection system.
MSHA solicits comments on how full-face continuous mining machines
should be addressed. Comments should be specific and include
alternatives, rationale for suggested alternatives, safety benefits to
miners, technological and economic feasibility considerations, and
supporting data.
The proposed rule would phase in the use of proximity detection
systems on newly manufactured continuous mining machines and continuous
mining machines in service on the publication date of the final rule
over an 18-month period. The phase-in period is based on the
availability of systems, the time necessary to process approvals for
proximity detection systems, projected time needed to install systems,
and MSHA and industry experience.
The Agency recognizes that it will take time for proximity
detection system manufacturers, machine manufacturers, and mine
operators to obtain approval under 30 CFR part 18. It will also take
time for manufacturers and mine operators to produce and install
proximity detection systems.
Several commenters on the RFI recommended that MSHA consider a
phase-in approach with separate compliance dates addressing new
equipment, rebuilt equipment, and equipment in service in underground
mines. One commenter encouraged MSHA to proceed cautiously and to
provide the time required to assure the development of reliable and
effective systems. Another commenter stated that most machines will be
retrofitted with proximity detection systems in a shop or during
rebuild. A proximity detection system manufacturer stated that a
proximity detection system can be installed and calibrated on a remote
controlled continuous mining machine in one midnight shift.
MSHA has determined that three months would be an appropriate
amount of time for operators to install proximity detection systems on
continuous mining machines (except full-face continuous mining
machines) that are manufactured after [the publication date of the
final rule].
In selecting this three-month time frame, MSHA took into
consideration the time period for the rulemaking, availability of three
existing MSHA-approved proximity detection systems for continuous
mining machines, the estimated number of continuous mining machines
that would be replaced by newly manufactured machines during this
period, and manufacturers' capacity to produce and install systems for
these machines. The three-month time period allows mine operators some
time to inform and train their workforce on proximity detection
systems.
The proposed rule would provide an additional 15 months for
operators to retrofit continuous mining machines, except full-face
continuous mining machines, that are manufactured on or before the
publication date of the final rule with proximity detection systems.
MSHA estimates that there are 1,150 place-changing continuous mining
machines in underground coal mines. These machines would need to be
replaced by a new machine with a proximity detection system or
retrofitted with a proximity detection system. MSHA has determined that
18 months would provide both operators and manufacturers with enough
time to retrofit place-changing continuous mining machines manufactured
on or before the publication date of the final rule with proximity
detection systems. MSHA recognizes that these machines, which are in
service when the final rule goes into effect, will need to be taken out
of service for a period of time. The additional 15 months would allow
mine operators to schedule the installation during planned rebuilds or
scheduled maintenance and would allow mine operators some time to
inform and train their workforce on proximity detection systems.
Continuous mining machines addressed in this proposal must be
approved by MSHA as permissible equipment under existing regulations in
30 CFR part 18 before they can be used in underground coal mines. The
machine manufacturer or the mine operator can obtain MSHA approval.
Machine manufacturers with MSHA approvals may submit an application to
MSHA's Approval and Certification Center (A&CC) to add a proximity
detection system to their approval. MSHA projects that machine
manufacturers would submit applications to allow all of their new and
many of their older models to be equipped with proximity detection
systems. In instances where the equipment manufacturer is no longer in
business or chooses not to seek approval, the mine operator has the
option to apply for a field modification or a district field change to
equip the machines with a proximity detection system. A mine operator
can either request a field modification through the A&CC or a field
change through MSHA's District Offices.
MSHA permissibility approvals include both evaluation of the
proximity detection systems and the addition of the systems to MSHA-
approved continuous mining machines. MSHA offers an optional Proximity
Detection Acceptance (PDA) program which allows a proximity detection
system manufacturer to obtain MSHA acceptance for a proximity detection
system (PDA Acceptance Number). This acceptance states that the
proximity detection system has been evaluated under 30 CFR part 18 and
is suitable for incorporation on an MSHA-approved machine. It permits
the manufacturer or owner of a machine to add the proximity detection
system to a machine by requesting MSHA to add the acceptance number to
the machine approval. However, a proximity detection system
manufacturer is not required to obtain a proximity detection system
acceptance. MSHA could also approve a machine modification submitted by
a continuous mining machine manufacturer or a field modification
submitted by a mine operator that includes a complete evaluation of a
proximity detection system that has not been evaluated under a PDA
acceptance.
Based on conversations with manufacturers of the three MSHA-
approved proximity detection systems,
[[Page 54168]]
MSHA estimates that together they can produce approximately 350 units
per month. MSHA estimates that the manufacturers can increase
production to about 400 to 600 units per month, if necessary, within
approximately three to six months. MSHA determined that it would take
approximately eight months to provide a sufficient number of units to
equip approximately 1,150 place-changing continuous mining machines
with proximity detection systems. However, the two phase-in periods are
based on the time needed for: Providing sufficient numbers of systems;
installing the systems on newly manufactured and existing machines;
obtaining necessary MSHA approvals and test systems; and informing and
training the workforce.
MSHA solicits comments on the proposed compliance dates. Comments
should be specific and include alternatives, rationale for suggested
alternatives, safety benefits to miners, technological and economic
feasibility considerations, and supporting data.
As the proximity detection systems are phased in, mine operators
would be required to provide miners with new task training under
existing part 48. MSHA intends that mine operators would address safety
issues that might arise during the phase-in period, such as some
machines being equipped with proximity detection systems while others
are not, through existing new task training requirements. In addition,
MSHA recently introduced a new initiative titled ``Safety Practices
Around Shuttle Cars and Scoops in Underground Coal Mines.'' This
outreach program includes training programs and best practices to
encourage mine operators to train underground coal miners to exercise
caution when working around mobile machines. Information regarding this
initiative is available at: https://www.msha.gov/focuson/watchout/watchout.asp.
In response to the RFI, some commenters stated that miners will
need task training when machines are equipped with a proximity
detection system. Miners working near proximity detection systems would
probably need to engage in different and unfamiliar machine operating
procedures resulting from new work positions, machine movements, and
new visual or auditory signals. Existing Sec. 48.7(a) requires that
miners assigned to new work tasks as mobile equipment operators shall
not perform new work tasks until training has been completed. In
addition, Sec. 48.7(c) requires miners assigned a new task not covered
in Sec. 48.7(a) be instructed in the safety and health aspects and
safe work procedures of the task prior to performing such task.
Miners must receive new task and equipment training on the proper
functioning of a proximity detection system before operating or working
near a machine equipped with a proximity detection system. New task
training (which is separate from new miner training under existing
Sec. 48.5 and annual refresher training under existing Sec. 48.8)
must occur before miners operate machines equipped with a proximity
detection system. New task training helps assure that miners have the
necessary skills to perform new tasks prior to assuming responsibility
for the tasks. Mine operators should assure that this training include
hands-on training during supervised non-production activities. The
hands-on training allows miners to experience how the systems work and
to locate the appropriate work positions around machines. Based on
Agency experience, the hands-on training is most effective when
provided in miners' work locations. As required by existing Sec.
48.7(a)(3) for new or modified machines and equipment, equipment and
machine operators shall be instructed in safe operating procedures
applicable to new or modified machines or equipment to be installed or
put into operation in the mine, which require new or different
operating procedures.
MSHA requests comments on the training of miners who use proximity
detection systems or work near machines equipped with these systems.
Comments should address the type of training, frequency of training,
content of training, and which miners should be trained. Comments
should be specific and include alternatives, rationale for suggested
alternatives, safety benefits to miners, technological and economic
feasibility considerations, and supporting data.
2. Section 75.1732(b) Requirements for Proximity Detection Systems
Proposed Sec. 75.1732(b) would address requirements for proximity
detection systems.
Proposed paragraph (b)(1) would require that a proximity detection
system cause a machine to stop no closer than three feet from a miner.
This proposed requirement would prevent pinning, crushing, and striking
accidents.
In the RFI, MSHA asked for comments on the size and shape of the
area around machines that a proximity detection system monitors and how
systems can be programmed and installed to provide different zones of
protection depending on machine function. Some commenters stated that
an effective proximity detection system should cause the machine to
stop before a miner enters the hazardous area around the machine and a
warning should be provided before the proximity detection system causes
the machine to stop.
Some commenters stated that zone size should be determined using a
risk assessment considering the speed at which the proximity detection
system can alert the operator, the reaction time of the operator, and
the number of people in the working area. Another commenter stated that
work practices vary among mines so that one specified zone may not work
for all mines. Another commenter stated that fixed zone sizes are used
in the commenter's operations because using different zones of
protection based on equipment function could confuse miners and zone
sizes should be kept small to avoid nuisance alarms but not so small so
as to allow a dangerous condition. One commenter stated that
establishing a set distance from a miner at which a machine would shut
down needs further analysis due to its potential to force machine
operators out of previously safe areas into potentially less safe areas
in order to avoid shutdown.
NIOSH has performed research on proximity detection systems. NIOSH
has an Internet Web Page (https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/topics/topicpage58.htm) that provides publications on proximity detection
systems and technology. The publications address measurement and
analysis issues related to the work positions of continuous mining
machine operators, needs and practices of machine operators while
controlling the machine, and the reasons for needing particular
operational cues, machine-related injuries in and priorities for safety
research, and operating speed assessments of underground mining
equipment. Several other publications on this Web page discuss the
application of proximity detection systems as engineering controls to
prevent mining accidents.
In their comments on the RFI, NIOSH stated that the goal of a
proximity detection system should be to prevent machine actions or
situations that injure workers while not placing restrictions on how
the workers do their jobs. NIOSH also stated that the total time
required for performing proximity detection system functions, plus a
safety factor, should be used to define the size of detection zones
around machines. NIOSH stated that the total time required includes
these components: (1) Detection of a potential victim; (2)
[[Page 54169]]
decision processing to determine if a collision-avoidance function is
needed; (3) an initiation of the collision-avoidance function; and (4)
implementation of the collision-avoidance function. NIOSH stated that
any rulemaking should be performance-based.
MSHA's experience with testing and observing proximity detection
systems indicates that causing a machine to stop no closer than three
feet from a miner would provide an appropriate distance, or margin of
safety, between a machine and a miner to prevent pinning, crushing, or
striking hazards. In addition, MSHA consulted relevant published
studies. A team of NIOSH researchers evaluated operator interactions
with continuous mining machines and roof bolting machines. The
researchers concluded that by maintaining a minimum 910 mm (3 ft)
distance from the machine, continuous mining machine operators can
substantially reduce their risk of being struck (Bartels, 2009). MSHA
believes that this distance includes a margin of safety and is
necessary to account for varying mining conditions, differences in the
operating condition of machines, and variations in the positioning of
miner-wearable components of the proximity detection system in relation
to machines.
The proposed three-foot stopping requirement is consistent with
MSHA's observations of operating proximity detection systems in an
underground coal mine in South Africa. During MSHA's visit, staff
observed that the proximity detection systems installed on continuous
mining machines caused the machine to stop before getting closer than
three feet from a miner. Prior to the introduction of proximity
detection systems at their mines, the company's policy was that miners
must maintain a minimum distance of three feet from all operating
mobile machines.
Each of the three proximity detection systems approved for
underground coal mines in the United States has a miner-wearable
component. Because the location of the miner-wearable component is the
point at which the systems measure distance, a part of the miner's body
may be further from or closer to the machine when the miner-wearable
component is exactly three feet from a machine. For these systems, MSHA
intends that the three-foot distance be measured from the surface of
the machine closest to the miner-wearable component. MSHA intends that
the machine remain stopped (or will not move) while any miner is three
feet or closer to the nearest surface of the machine.
One method a mine operator could use to determine that a proximity
detection system will cause the machine to stop no closer than three
feet from a miner is to suspend a miner-wearable component from the
mine roof, move the machine towards the suspended component, and after
the machine stops movement, measure the distance between the machine
and the suspended component to check whether the three-foot distance
has been met. MSHA recognizes that many factors would be considered
when determining whether the proximity detection system will cause the
machine to stop no closer than three feet from a miner. These factors,
among others, include machine speed, slope of entries, and wet
roadways.
MSHA considered proposing a performance-oriented requirement that
would not specify a specific distance a machine must stop from a miner,
e.g., ``before contacting a miner.'' MSHA also considered proposing
other specific stopping distances, e.g., six feet from a miner but
concluded that longer stopping distances may increase the frequency of
machine shutdowns while offering little additional benefit to miners.
MSHA solicits comments on the proposed three-foot stopping distance
requirement and on other alternatives to this proposed provision.
Comments should be specific and address how the requirement impacts
miner safety. Comments should include safety benefits to miners,
technological and economic feasibility considerations, and supporting
data.
MSHA recognizes that there are different points that could be used
to measure the proposed three-foot distance from a machine to a miner
when the proximity detection system requires the miner to wear a
component and solicits comments on the point at which the three-foot
stopping distance should be measured. Comments should be specific and
include suggested alternatives, rationale for suggested alternatives,
safety benefits to miners, technological and economic feasibility
considerations, and supporting data.
The proposed rule would require that all machine movement be
stopped when a miner gets closer than three feet except for the
continuous mining machine operator when cutting coal or rock. It is
important to note that the proposed exception would only apply when the
machine operator is actually cutting coal or rock. Some current
proximity detection systems on continuous mining machines are installed
to stop machine tram movement and the conveyor swing function when the
system is activated while permitting other machine movement, such as
rotation of the cutter head and movement of the gathering arms. MSHA
solicits comments on whether all movement should be stopped. Comments
should be specific and include alternatives, rationale for suggested
alternatives, safety benefits to miners, technological and economic
feasibility considerations, and supporting data.
The three MSHA-approved proximity detection systems have a miner-
wearable component. These systems cannot detect a miner who is not
wearing the component. The cost estimates for the miner-wearable
components included in the Preliminary Regulatory Economic Analysis
(PREA) are based on miners on the working section being equipped with
these components. MSHA solicits comments on which miners working around
continuous mining machines should be required to have a miner-wearable
component. Comments should be specific and include alternatives,
rationale for suggested alternatives, safety benefits to miners,
technological and economic feasibility considerations, and supporting
data.
Proposed paragraph (b)(1)(i) would provide an exception for a miner
who is in an on-board operator's compartment. Machines with an on-board
operator will not function if the proximity detection system prevents
machine movement when the operator is within three feet of the machine.
One proximity detection system is currently designed to allow a miner
to be in an on-board operator's compartment while assuring that miners
outside the operator's compartment are protected. Proposed paragraph
(b)(1)(i) would allow machines equipped with a proximity detection
system to move if a miner occupies the operator's compartment. The
proposed rule would require that continuous mining machines be stopped
if any miner not in the operator's compartment is closer than three
feet.
Commenters generally stated that machines with an on-board
operator's compartment should have a proximity detection system that
allows machines to function when the operator is in the operator's
compartment. One commenter stated that a proximity detection system can
include exclusion zones to allow mobile machines to move while a miner
is in the exclusion zone but still protect other miners.
Proposed paragraph (b)(1)(ii) would provide an exception for a
miner who is remotely operating a continuous mining machine while
cutting coal or rock. In this case, the proximity detection system
would be required to cause the
[[Page 54170]]
machine to stop before contacting the machine operator. The use of the
term ``cutting coal or rock'' would not include situations where the
cutter head is rotating but not removing coal or rock from the face.
In response to the RFI, one commenter stated that a remote
controlled continuous mining machine that is tramming presents
different hazards than one that is cutting coal. This commenter stated
that the size and shape of the detection zone should be changed based
on the function of the machine. Some commenters stated that zone sizes
could depend on machine function (cutting or tramming). Several
commenters suggested that protection zones should be largest when
tramming machines and reduced protection zones are needed for certain
mining operations such as cutting. Another commenter stated that the
proximity detection system for a remote controlled continuous mining
machine should keep all personnel at a safe distance from the periphery
of the machine except for the operator who should be allowed to
approach the machine at designated locations to perform cutting
operations, such that if the operator fails to stay in the designated
locations, the machine will immediately stop.
MSHA is not aware of a continuous mining machine fatal accident
that occurred while the machine was cutting coal or rock. In all the 30
continuous mining machine fatal accidents from 1984 to 2010 which could
have been prevented by proximity detection systems, the continuous
mining machine was in the process of being moved (trammed) when the
accident occurred. In addition, there are certain mining operations
where the continuous mining machine operators get closer than within
three feet of the machine in order to properly perform the required
tasks (e.g., turning crosscuts). In MSHA's experience, when a
continuous mining machine is cutting coal or rock, the machine moves in
a slower manner, which reduces the hazard. For these reasons, MSHA
proposes to allow a continuous mining machine operator to be closer
than three feet from the machine while cutting coal or rock; however,
the proximity detection system would be required to stop machine
movement before contacting the operator. The proximity detection system
would be required to stop machine movement if a miner who is not
remotely operating the continuous mining machine gets closer than three
feet from the machine while the machine is cutting coal or rock. The
proximity detection systems that MHSA observed in South Africa do not
allow miners within three feet of a continuous mining machine while
cutting coal or rock. However, these mines have larger entry dimensions
than underground coal mines in the United States, which provides more
room for machine operator positioning.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2) would require the proximity detection
system to provide an audible or visual warning signal distinguishable
from other signals, when the machine is five feet and closer to a
miner.
In the RFI, MSHA asked for information on the most effective
protection that proximity detection systems could provide. In response,
some commenters stated that a proximity detection system should include
a warning prior to causing the machine to stop movement. One commenter
stated that proximity detection systems should include a range of
escalating alerts depending on the proximity to a hazard.
Most proximity detection systems alert miners who get within a
certain distance of a machine, before causing machine movement to stop.
This provides an added margin of safety and is consistent with most
standard safety practices. The Agency recognizes that the use of a
proximity detection system that causes frequent machine stops can
result in: frustration to miners; miners ignoring warnings; and can
possibly lead to unsafe work practices. MSHA believes that an
appropriate warning signal is necessary to optimize miner safety when
using a proximity detection system.
Based on MSHA's experience, proximity detection systems in the
United States provide an audible or visual warning signal when a miner
is five feet and closer to a machine. The systems on continuous mining
machines in South Africa provide an audible warning signal when a miner
is closer than six feet to a machine. However, entries in the United
States are typically narrower than those observed in South Africa,
making a five-foot distance more appropriate and minimizing unnecessary
warning signals. In MSHA's experience, an audible or visual warning
signal provided when the machine is five feet and closer to a miner
includes a necessary margin of safety and allows the miner an
opportunity to be proactive and move away from the machine to avoid
danger.
Consistent with proposed paragraph (b)(1)(i), proposed paragraph
(b)(2)(i) would provide an exception to the warning signal for the
miner who is in an on-board operator's compartment.
Consistent with proposed paragraph (b)(1)(ii), proposed paragraph
(b)(2)(ii) would provide an exception to the warning signal for a miner
who is remotely operating a continuous mining machine while cutting
coal or rock. A five-foot warning signal would not improve safety in
this case because the operator may be closer than five feet to the
machine for the duration of the activity of cutting coal or rock. Under
the proposed rule, the proximity detection system would be required to
provide a warning signal when the machine is closer than five feet from
miners who are not remotely operating a continuous mining machine while
the machine is cutting coal or rock.
Proposed paragraph (b)(3) would require that a proximity detection
system provide a visual signal on the machine that indicates the system
is functioning properly.
Commenters in response to the RFI generally stated that a proximity
detection system should include system diagnostics and indicate that
the system is functioning properly. In its comments on the RFI, NIOSH
stated that each proximity detection system should perform self-
diagnostics to identify software or hardware problems.
The proposed visual signal would allow miners to readily determine
that a proximity detection system is functioning properly. MSHA
believes that a visual signal is preferable to provide feedback to the
miner because, unlike an audible signal, it could not be obscured by
surrounding noise. A light-emitting diode (LED) would be an acceptable
visual signal.
Proposed paragraph (b)(4) would require that a proximity detection
system prevent movement of the machine if the system is not functioning
properly. However, as proposed, a system may allow machine movement so
that if the system is not functioning properly, the machine can be
moved if an audible or visual warning signal, distinguishable from
other signals, is provided during movement. Such movement would be
permitted only for purposes of relocating the machine from an unsafe
location for repair.
Commenters in response to the RFI had different opinions on whether
a proximity detection system should be permitted to override the
shutdown feature to allow machine movement in a particular
circumstance. One commenter stated that a proximity detection system
must provide a continuous self-check capability so that if the system
is not functioning properly, the machine cannot be operated; this same
commenter stated that only an appointed person should
[[Page 54171]]
have the authority to override a proximity detection system. Several
commenters stated that a proximity detection system should allow for
temporary deactivation, such as an emergency override, in case a system
is not functioning properly while a machine is under unsupported roof.
Another commenter, however, stated that a proximity detection system
should not have an override feature.
Proposed paragraph (b)(4) would allow machine movement so that if
the proximity detection system is not functioning properly and is in an
unsafe location, the machine can be moved if an audible or visual
warning signal, distinguishable from other signals, is provided during
movement. The proposed provision would allow a machine to be moved if
it is not functioning properly and is in an unsafe location, such as
under unsupported roof, to protect miners from hazards that could arise
if the proximity detection system is not functioning properly and is in
an unsafe location. Overriding the proximity detection system should
only occur for the time necessary to move the machine to a safe
location--for example, the time needed to move a continuous mining
machine from under unsupported roof to an appropriate repair location.
This movement would be allowed only to relocate the machine for safety
reasons. The proposed provision to allow the machine to be moved would
require an audible or visual warning signal, distinguishable from other
signals, to caution miners when the machine is being moved from an
unsafe location.
Proposed paragraph (b)(5) would require that a proximity detection
system be installed to prevent interference with or from other
electrical systems.
Some commenters in response to the RFI stated that interference of
proximity detection systems with other mine electrical systems is a
concern. However, manufacturers of the three approved proximity
detection systems all stated that their systems do not have significant
interference issues. A commenter stated that electromagnetic
interference may prevent these systems from providing complete
protection to miners. Several commenters stated that systems must be
designed and tested for possible and known sources of interference
before a requirement for proximity detection is issued. A commenter
expressed concern that a proximity detection system may detonate
explosives due to electromagnetic field interference.
Electrical systems, including proximity detection systems, used in
the mine can adversely affect the function of other electrical systems.
The interference results from electromagnetic interference (EMI). There
have been instances of adverse performance of remote controlled
systems, atmospheric monitoring systems, and cap lamps when a hand-held
radio was operated nearby. Electromagnetic output of approved proximity
detection systems is substantially lower than other mine electrical
systems such as communication and atmospheric monitoring systems, and
therefore, the likelihood of encountering interference issues is less.
The mine operator would be required to evaluate the proximity
detection system and other electrical systems in the mine and take
adequate steps to prevent adverse interference. Steps could include
design considerations such as the addition of filters or providing
adequate separation between electrical systems. The mine operator would
also be required to take steps to prevent interference with any
blasting circuits used in the mine.
Proposed paragraph (b)(6) would require that a proximity detection
system be installed and maintained by a person trained in the
installation and maintenance of the system. The proximity detection
systems use advanced technology that often must be coordinated with
machine electronics to ensure the system functions properly. MSHA
believes this work should be performed by miners who are properly
trained to understand the operation of the system and the proper
installation techniques.
A commenter in response to the RFI stated that maintenance
personnel and machine operators will need training to assure they
understand proximity detection system functionality and any maintenance
requirements. This commenter also stated that proper installation of a
proximity detection system is critical for reliable performance.
Another commenter said that a few hours of classroom instruction and
approximately one hour of underground training for machine operators
has proven adequate and that maintenance training requires about four
hours.
Based on MSHA experience with testing of proximity detection
systems, proper functioning of a proximity detection system is directly
related to the quality of the installation and maintenance of the
systems. Training helps assure that the person performing installation
and maintenance of a proximity detection system understands the system
well enough to perform tasks such as replacing and adjusting system
components, adjusting software, and troubleshooting electrical
connections.
Based on MSHA's limited experience with proximity detection systems
on continuous mining machines in underground coal mines, MSHA
anticipates that operators would assign miners to perform most
maintenance activities, but representatives of the manufacturer may
perform some maintenance. Also, based on Agency experience, operators
would generally arrange for proximity detection system manufacturers to
provide appropriate training to miners for installation and
maintenance. Miners receiving training from manufacturers'
representatives would, in most cases, provide training for other miners
who become responsible for installation and maintenance duties at the
mine. In MSHA's experience, many mines use the train-the-trainer
concept for installation and maintenance activities related to certain
mining equipment.
MSHA solicits comments on this proposed provision. Comments should
be specific and include alternatives, rationale for suggested
alternatives, safety benefits to miners, technological and economic
feasibility considerations, and supporting data.
3. Section 75.1732(c) Examination and Checking
Proposed Sec. 75.1732(c) would address examination and checking of
proximity detection systems.
Proposed paragraph (c)(1) would require that operators designate a
person who must perform a visual check of machine-mounted components of
the proximity detection system to verify that components are intact,
that the system is functioning properly, and take action to correct
defects: (i) At the beginning of each shift when the machine is to be
used; (ii) immediately prior to the time the machine is to be operated
if not in use at the beginning of a shift; or (iii) within one hour of
a shift change if the shift change occurs without an interruption in
production.
Several commenters stated that a proximity detection system should
be checked at the begin
