Petitions for Modification of Application of Existing Mandatory Safety Standards, 9234-9236 [2017-02297]
Download as PDF
9234
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 22 / Friday, February 3, 2017 / Notices
This ICR
seeks continued PRA authorization for
Job Corps application data collected on
three forms (ETA–652, Job Corps Data
Sheet; ETA–655, Statement from Court
or Other Agency; and ETA–682, Child
Care Certification) used for screening
and enrollment purposes to determine
eligibility for the Job Corp program in
accordance with Workforce Innovation
and Opportunity Act (WIOA)
requirements. The information collected
concerns economic criteria and past
behavior as well as information needed
to certify an applicant’s arrangements
for care of dependent children while the
applicant is in the Job Corps. WIOA
section 145 authorizes this information
collection. See 29 U.S.C. 3196.
This information collection is subject
to the PRA. A Federal agency generally
cannot conduct or sponsor a collection
of information, and the public is
generally not required to respond to an
information collection, unless it is
approved by the OMB under the PRA
and displays a currently valid OMB
Control Number. In addition,
notwithstanding any other provisions of
law, no person shall generally be subject
to penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information that does not
display a valid Control Number. See 5
CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL
obtains OMB approval for this
information collection under Control
Number 1205–0025.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot
be for more than three (3) years without
renewal, and the current approval for
this collection is scheduled to expire on
January 31, 2017. The DOL seeks to
extend PRA authorization for this
information collection for three (3) more
years, without any change to existing
requirements. The DOL notes that
existing information collection
requirements submitted to the OMB
receive a month-to-month extension
while they undergo review. For
additional substantive information
about this ICR, see the related notice
published in the Federal Register on
November 29, 2016 (81 FR 86015).
Interested parties are encouraged to
send comments to the OMB, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs at
the address shown in the ADDRESSES
section by March 2, 2017. In order to
help ensure appropriate consideration,
comments should mention OMB Control
Number 1205–0025. The OMB is
particularly interested in comments
that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Feb 02, 2017
Jkt 241001
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.
Agency: DOL–ETA.
Title of Collection: Job Corps
Application Data.
OMB Control Number: 1205–0025.
Affected Public: Individuals and
Households.
Total Estimated Number of
Respondents: 139,955.
Total Estimated Number of
Responses: 139,955.
Total Estimated Annual Time Burden:
12,556 hours.
Total Estimated Annual Other Costs
Burden: $ 0.
Dated: January 25, 2017.
Michel Smyth,
Departmental Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2017–02319 Filed 2–2–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FT–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Petitions for Modification of
Application of Existing Mandatory
Safety Standards
Mine Safety and Health
Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Section 101(c) of the Federal
Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and
Title 30 of the Code of Federal
Regulations Part 44 govern the
application, processing, and disposition
of petitions for modification. This notice
is a summary of petitions for
modification submitted to the Mine
Safety and Health Administration
(MSHA) by the parties listed below.
DATES: All comments on the petitions
must be received by MSHA’s Office of
Standards, Regulations, and Variances
on or before March 6, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit your
comments, identified by ‘‘docket
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
number’’ on the subject line, by any of
the following methods:
1. Electronic Mail: zzMSHAcomments@dol.gov. Include the docket
number of the petition in the subject
line of the message.
2. Facsimile: 202–693–9441.
3. Regular Mail or Hand Delivery:
MSHA, Office of Standards,
Regulations, and Variances, 201 12th
Street South, Suite 4E401, Arlington,
Virginia 22202–5452, Attention: Sheila
McConnell, Director, Office of
Standards, Regulations, and Variances.
Persons delivering documents are
required to check in at the receptionist’s
desk in Suite 4E401. Individuals may
inspect copies of the petitions and
comments during normal business
hours at the address listed above.
MSHA will consider only comments
postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service or
proof of delivery from another delivery
service such as UPS or Federal Express
on or before the deadline for comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Barbara Barron, Office of Standards,
Regulations, and Variances at 202–693–
9447 (Voice), barron.barbara@dol.gov
(Email), or 202–693–9441 (Facsimile).
[These are not toll-free numbers.]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine
Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine
Act) allows the mine operator or
representative of miners to file a
petition to modify the application of any
mandatory safety standard to a coal or
other mine if the Secretary of Labor
determines that:
1. An alternative method of achieving
the result of such standard exists which
will at all times guarantee no less than
the same measure of protection afforded
the miners of such mine by such
standard; or
2. That the application of such
standard to such mine will result in a
diminution of safety to the miners in
such mine.
In addition, the regulations at 30 CFR
44.10 and 44.11 establish the
requirements and procedures for filing
petitions for modification.
II. Petitions for Modification
Docket Number: M–2016–009–M.
Petitioner: Coeur Alaska, Inc., 1700
Lincoln Street, Suite 4700, Denver,
Colorado 80203.
Mine: Kensington Mine, MSHA I.D.
No. 50–01544, located in Juneau
County, Alaska.
Regulation Affected: 30 CFR
57.11052(d) (refuge areas).
Modification Request: The petitioner
requests a modification of the existing
E:\FR\FM\03FEN1.SGM
03FEN1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 22 / Friday, February 3, 2017 / Notices
standard for refuge areas applied to the
development and exploration areas at its
Kensington mine. The petitioner seeks
approval to use the recently installed
Strata-manufactured, 12-person
emergency refuge chambers—portable
(ERCP), which are equipped with
internal air and water supplies, without
having to provide compressed air and
waterlines. The petitioner states that:
(1) On July 12, 2016, Coeur submitted
a petition for modification (PFM #1)
seeking relief from § 57.11050. PFM #1
seeks relief from MSHA’s requirement
that Coeur provides a refuge chamber
within 1,000 feet of the development
face in the mine. During Coeur’s
discussions with MSHA as part of the
review of PFM #1 and Coeur’s
compliance with § 57.11050, Coeur
learned that a second petition for
modification (PFM #2) was necessary to
seek relief from § 57.11052(d). The
petitioner requests that MSHA consider
PFM #2 in conjunction with information
submitted previously for PFM #1
because the factual basis for both
petitions and means of compliance for
both standards are intertwined. These
means of compliance will provide the
same or greater measure of safety as the
existing regulations.
(2) The petitioner owns and operates
the Kensington mine, an underground
gold mine located in Juneau County,
Alaska. Kensington utilizes both
transverse and longitudinal long-hole
stoping. In both methods, a single
development drift is driven through
waste rock adjacent to the ore body.
When this drift reaches planned
elevations, level accesses are developed
to provide entry points to the ore body
for exploration and later ore production.
Once the level development and
exploration are completed at a planned
elevation, the ore is extracted either
perpendicular (transverse stoping) or
parallel to the strike of the ore
(longitudinal stoping).
(3) With PFM #1, Coeur sought relief
from MSHA’s interpretation of 30 CFR
57.11050 that would require that a
refuge chamber be located within 1,000
feet of the development face. Part of the
basis for PFM #1 is that the petitioner’s
miners at the development face can
walk to the existing refuge chamber
within 30 minutes as required by the
standard and the existing location of the
permanent refuge chamber complies
with § 57.11050. Also, the petitioner has
voluntarily elected to provide an ERCP
in the vicinity of the development face,
and to reposition that ERCP from time
to time as development advances.
(4) Because ERCP is equipped with a
minimum of a 72-hour internal air
supply for up to 12 miners, and more
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Feb 02, 2017
Jkt 241001
than 20 gallons of potable water, the
petitioner seeks relief from the
requirement in § 57.11052(d) to connect
compressed air and waterlines to the
ECRP each time it is repositioned.
(5) The ERCP as constructed by the
manufacturer complies with § 57.11052
because the ERCP has internal air and
water sources. Kensington has been in
operation since 1987. The petitioner has
operated the mine since 1995, and
between 1995 and 2009, activities were
exclusively exploration and
development. Coeur did not begin
production until 2010, with limited
production areas. The portions of the
Kensington mine that are relevant to
PFM #2 are still in the exploration and
development phases—no production is
occurring in these areas. During the
fourth quarter of 2016, Kensington
typically had nine stopes associated
with production, and approximately
three main development drifts in which
exploration and development are taking
place. The precise number of stopes and
drifts may vary slightly from one month
to the next.
Currently, 100 percent of
Kensington’s operations below the 480
level are either development or
exploration. At present, the ERCP is
positioned within 1,000 feet from the
development face, and the current
location of Kensington’s permanent
refuge station adjacent to the 585
Downramp complies with the
requirements of §§ 57.11050 and
57.11052(d) because the miners working
in the development area can reach it
within 30 minutes, and compressed
airlines and waterlines are installed at
that station.
(6) The ERCP is located directly below
the 330 level access, and has air and
waterlines connected to it. However, the
ERCP will not remain in this location
permanently. The petitioner will
relocate the ERCP in the future as
development activities advance. The
ERCP is more than a reinforced metal
compartment to physically shield
miners following an underground
emergency—it is a self-contained
chamber with own sources for electrical
power, breathable air, water, food, and
a lavatory. Even without being
connected to mine services, the ERCP
can provide electrical power and
breathable air to occupants for a
minimum of 72 hours if the atmosphere
outside the ERCP is contaminated. The
ERCP is equipped with enough potable
water to last three days with up to 12
occupants.
(7) Section 57.11052(d) requires that
every refuge area be provided with
compressed air lines, waterlines,
suitable hand tools, and stopping
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
9235
materials. Based on our research, there
is no regulatory or judicial history that
explains the purpose behind a
requirement for compressed air lines
and waterlines. Accordingly, petitioner
assumes that these lines are intended to
serve the purpose a reasonably prudent
person, familiar with the mining
industry, would expect—to provide a
source of breathable air and potable
water to miners inside a refuge area.
As a matter of simple logic, an
operator complies with § 57.11052(d) by
prepositioning hand tools and stoping
materials inside the refuge area for
future use. Similarly, if air and water
could be prepositioned in a refuge area
for future use, the operator would be
complying with the standard.
Historically, it was difficult to ensure
that sufficient breathable air and potable
water would be available in a refuge
area. Today, the technology behind the
ERCP enables the petitioner to provide
a sustainable environment for its miners
and a viable time window for mine
rescue teams to reach the ERCP
following an emergency, thereby
rendering the requirement for external
air waterlines obsolete—particularly
when the ERCP is a supplemental
device in addition to Kensington’s
existing permanent refuge stations.
(8) Section 57.11052(d) does not
specify a minimum quantity, volume or
pressure for air lines and water lines,
and the regulation makes no mention of
independent power sources or lengths
of time the air and waterlines need to be
available at the refuge area. The
standard simply requires they be
provided. The ERCP provides breathable
air and potable water. Kensington
already complies with the standards
requirement. This capability to provide
known quantities of air and water
internally is a benefit to the ERCP
occupants because there is no risk of
interrupted air and water access from
external damage to the lines, and the
known quantities allow mine rescue
teams to make informed decisions
regarding the length of time that an
ERCP can provide a sustainable
environment for its occupants.
(9) Installing air lines and water lines
each time the ERCP is relocated to
remain in proximity to the development
face would result in a diminution of
safety; however, requested relief
provides an equivalent degree of safety
to § 57.11051(d).
Kensington’s underground operations
take place in a dynamic environment,
and its exploration and development
areas are dominated by self-propelled
mobile equipment and blasting
activities. At desired development rates,
Kensington typically advances its faces
E:\FR\FM\03FEN1.SGM
03FEN1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
9236
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 22 / Friday, February 3, 2017 / Notices
in development drifts twice per day,
with each advance being a 12-foot
length. If the ERCP will have to be
relocated from time to time to remain in
the vicinity of the development face, as
contemplated in PFM #1, the ERCP
would have to be relocated on a
recurring basis.
(10) Repeated movement of the ERCP
puts miners at risk for several reasons.
An ERCP cannot simply be parked on
the decline because of its size—it would
block access between the development
drift face and the escapeways. To allow
for the decline to remain clear, a cutout
into the rib must be made to park the
ERCP, making the relocation more
complex.
(11) Damage to the ERCP will put
miners at risk as the refuge may not
function as intended. Each time the
ERCP is relocated, there is a potential
that the ERCP will be damaged in some
manner. Similarly, if a compressed air
line and waterline need to be run and
connected to each new location for the
ERCP, there is a chance that the lines or
the connections will be damaged.
Potential damage to the ERCP and the
external airline and waterlines increases
each time they are moved,
disconnected, rerouted, reconnected,
and tested. The risk of damaging the
lines and connectors is eliminated by
relying on the ERCP’s self-contained
capabilities.
The ERCP can only provide a safety
benefit to miners while the device is
operational. To the extent an ERCP is
unavailable while being relocated, that
window of non-availability will increase
while the air and water lines are being
run, connected and tested for the new
location. As such, complying with
§ 57.11052(d) with respect to the
relocating of the ERCP will have a
detrimental effect on miner safety.
(12) There are significant costs
associated with each movement of an
ERCP. The ERCP is roughly 15-feet long,
and requires a cutout that is 30-feet
deep. The development costs at
Kensington are approximately $1,500
per foot, meaning that each 30-foot
cutout will cost $45,000 to create.
Installing air, water and shotcrete will
add to the figure. Moving the unit will
take 2 miners approximately 12 hours,
at a labor cost of $1,136. In total, the
average cost to relocate a portable refuge
one time is almost $50,000. To the
extent these costs can be controlled by
alleviating redundant or unnecessary
requirements, Coeur’s submits this
petition.
The petitioner asserts that the
alternative method will at all times
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Feb 02, 2017
Jkt 241001
provide the same measure of protection
as the existing standard.
Sheila McConnell,
Director, Office of Standards, Regulations,
and Variances.
[FR Doc. 2017–02297 Filed 2–2–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4520–43–P
LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
Request for Letters of Intent To Apply
for 2017 Technology Initiative Grant
Funding
Legal Services Corporation.
Notice.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Legal Services
Corporation (LSC) issues this Notice
describing the process for submission of
Letters of Intent to Apply for 2017
funding from the LSC Technology
Initiative Grant program. This notice
and application information are posted
at https://tinyurl.com/TIGProcess2017.
DATES: Deadline: Letters of Intent must
be completed and submitted into the
online system at https://lscgrants.lsc.gov
no later than 11:59 p.m. EDT, Friday,
March 13, 2017. The online system may
experience technical difficulties due to
heavy traffic on the day of the deadline.
Applicants are strongly encouraged to
complete LOI submissions as early as
possible.
LSC will not accept applications
submitted after the application deadline
unless an extension of the deadline has
been approved in advance (see Waiver
Authority). Therefore, allow sufficient
time for online submission.
LSC will provide confirmation via
email upon receipt of the completed
electronic submission of each Letter of
Intent. Keep this email as verification
that the program’s LOI was submitted
and received. If no confirmation email
is received, inquire about the status of
your LOI at Techgrants@lsc.gov.
ADDRESSES: Letters of Intent must be
submitted electronically at https://
lscgrants.lsc.gov.
SUMMARY:
For
information on the status of a current
TIG project, contact Eric Mathison,
Program Analyst, 202–295–1535;
emathison@lsc.gov.
For questions about projects in CT, IL,
IN, ME, MA, MI, NH, NJ, NY, OH, PA,
RI, WI, WV, VT, contact David
Bonebrake, Program Counsel, 202–295–
1547; dbonebrake@lsc.gov.
For questions about projects in AK,
AZ, CA, CO, GU, HI, ID, IA, KS, MP,
MN, MT, NE, NV, NH, NM, ND, OK, OR,
SD, TX, UT, WA, WY, contact Glenn
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Rawdon, Senior Program Counsel,
202.295.1552; grawdon@lsc.gov.
For questions about projects in AL,
AR, DC, FL, GA, KY, LA, MD, MS, MO,
NC, PR, SC, TN, VI, VA, contact Jane
Ribadeneyra, Program Analyst,
202.295.1554, ribadeneyraj@lsc.gov.
If you have a general question, please
email techgrants@lsc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Summary
The Legal Services Corporation (LSC)
issues this Notice describing the criteria
governing submission and processing of
Letters of Intent to Apply for
Technology Initiative Grants (TIG).
Since LSC’s TIG program was
established in 2000, LSC has made over
670 grants totaling more than $57
million. This grant program funds
technology tools that help achieve LSC’s
goal of increasing the quantity and
quality of legal services available to
eligible persons. Projects funded under
the TIG program develop, test, and
replicate innovative technologies that
can enable grant recipients and state
justice communities to improve lowincome persons’ access to high-quality
legal assistance through an integrated
and well managed technology system.
II. General Information
The Legal Services Corporation
awards Technology Initiative Grant
funds through an open, competitive,
and impartial selection process. All
prospective applicants for 2017 TIG
funds must submit a Letter of Intent to
Apply (LOI) prior to submitting a formal
application. The format and contents of
the LOI should conform to the
requirements specified below in Section
IV.
Through the LOI process, LSC selects
those projects that have a reasonable
chance of success in the competitive
grant process based on LSC’s analysis of
the project description and other
information provided in the LOI. LSC
will solicit full proposals for the
selected projects.
LSC Requirements
Technology Initiative Grant funds are
subject to all LSC requirements,
including the requirements of the Legal
Services Corporation Act (LSC Act), any
applicable appropriations acts and any
other applicable laws, rules, regulations,
policies, guidelines, instructions, and
other directives of the Legal Services
Corporation (LSC), including, but not
limited to, the LSC Audit Guide for
Recipients and Auditors, the
Accounting Guide for LSC Recipients,
the CSR Handbook, the 1981 LSC
Property Manual (as amended) and the
E:\FR\FM\03FEN1.SGM
03FEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 22 (Friday, February 3, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9234-9236]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-02297]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Petitions for Modification of Application of Existing Mandatory
Safety Standards
AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of
1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 44 govern the
application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.
This notice is a summary of petitions for modification submitted to the
Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) by the parties listed
below.
DATES: All comments on the petitions must be received by MSHA's Office
of Standards, Regulations, and Variances on or before March 6, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit your comments, identified by ``docket
number'' on the subject line, by any of the following methods:
1. Electronic Mail: zzMSHA-comments@dol.gov. Include the docket
number of the petition in the subject line of the message.
2. Facsimile: 202-693-9441.
3. Regular Mail or Hand Delivery: MSHA, Office of Standards,
Regulations, and Variances, 201 12th Street South, Suite 4E401,
Arlington, Virginia 22202-5452, Attention: Sheila McConnell, Director,
Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances. Persons delivering
documents are required to check in at the receptionist's desk in Suite
4E401. Individuals may inspect copies of the petitions and comments
during normal business hours at the address listed above.
MSHA will consider only comments postmarked by the U.S. Postal
Service or proof of delivery from another delivery service such as UPS
or Federal Express on or before the deadline for comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Barron, Office of Standards,
Regulations, and Variances at 202-693-9447 (Voice),
barron.barbara@dol.gov (Email), or 202-693-9441 (Facsimile). [These are
not toll-free numbers.]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977
(Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file
a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard
to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:
1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard
exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure
of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or
2. That the application of such standard to such mine will result
in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.
In addition, the regulations at 30 CFR 44.10 and 44.11 establish
the requirements and procedures for filing petitions for modification.
II. Petitions for Modification
Docket Number: M-2016-009-M.
Petitioner: Coeur Alaska, Inc., 1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 4700,
Denver, Colorado 80203.
Mine: Kensington Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 50-01544, located in Juneau
County, Alaska.
Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 57.11052(d) (refuge areas).
Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of the
existing
[[Page 9235]]
standard for refuge areas applied to the development and exploration
areas at its Kensington mine. The petitioner seeks approval to use the
recently installed Strata-manufactured, 12-person emergency refuge
chambers--portable (ERCP), which are equipped with internal air and
water supplies, without having to provide compressed air and
waterlines. The petitioner states that:
(1) On July 12, 2016, Coeur submitted a petition for modification
(PFM #1) seeking relief from Sec. 57.11050. PFM #1 seeks relief from
MSHA's requirement that Coeur provides a refuge chamber within 1,000
feet of the development face in the mine. During Coeur's discussions
with MSHA as part of the review of PFM #1 and Coeur's compliance with
Sec. 57.11050, Coeur learned that a second petition for modification
(PFM #2) was necessary to seek relief from Sec. 57.11052(d). The
petitioner requests that MSHA consider PFM #2 in conjunction with
information submitted previously for PFM #1 because the factual basis
for both petitions and means of compliance for both standards are
intertwined. These means of compliance will provide the same or greater
measure of safety as the existing regulations.
(2) The petitioner owns and operates the Kensington mine, an
underground gold mine located in Juneau County, Alaska. Kensington
utilizes both transverse and longitudinal long-hole stoping. In both
methods, a single development drift is driven through waste rock
adjacent to the ore body. When this drift reaches planned elevations,
level accesses are developed to provide entry points to the ore body
for exploration and later ore production. Once the level development
and exploration are completed at a planned elevation, the ore is
extracted either perpendicular (transverse stoping) or parallel to the
strike of the ore (longitudinal stoping).
(3) With PFM #1, Coeur sought relief from MSHA's interpretation of
30 CFR 57.11050 that would require that a refuge chamber be located
within 1,000 feet of the development face. Part of the basis for PFM #1
is that the petitioner's miners at the development face can walk to the
existing refuge chamber within 30 minutes as required by the standard
and the existing location of the permanent refuge chamber complies with
Sec. 57.11050. Also, the petitioner has voluntarily elected to provide
an ERCP in the vicinity of the development face, and to reposition that
ERCP from time to time as development advances.
(4) Because ERCP is equipped with a minimum of a 72-hour internal
air supply for up to 12 miners, and more than 20 gallons of potable
water, the petitioner seeks relief from the requirement in Sec.
57.11052(d) to connect compressed air and waterlines to the ECRP each
time it is repositioned.
(5) The ERCP as constructed by the manufacturer complies with Sec.
57.11052 because the ERCP has internal air and water sources.
Kensington has been in operation since 1987. The petitioner has
operated the mine since 1995, and between 1995 and 2009, activities
were exclusively exploration and development. Coeur did not begin
production until 2010, with limited production areas. The portions of
the Kensington mine that are relevant to PFM #2 are still in the
exploration and development phases--no production is occurring in these
areas. During the fourth quarter of 2016, Kensington typically had nine
stopes associated with production, and approximately three main
development drifts in which exploration and development are taking
place. The precise number of stopes and drifts may vary slightly from
one month to the next.
Currently, 100 percent of Kensington's operations below the 480
level are either development or exploration. At present, the ERCP is
positioned within 1,000 feet from the development face, and the current
location of Kensington's permanent refuge station adjacent to the 585
Downramp complies with the requirements of Sec. Sec. 57.11050 and
57.11052(d) because the miners working in the development area can
reach it within 30 minutes, and compressed airlines and waterlines are
installed at that station.
(6) The ERCP is located directly below the 330 level access, and
has air and waterlines connected to it. However, the ERCP will not
remain in this location permanently. The petitioner will relocate the
ERCP in the future as development activities advance. The ERCP is more
than a reinforced metal compartment to physically shield miners
following an underground emergency--it is a self-contained chamber with
own sources for electrical power, breathable air, water, food, and a
lavatory. Even without being connected to mine services, the ERCP can
provide electrical power and breathable air to occupants for a minimum
of 72 hours if the atmosphere outside the ERCP is contaminated. The
ERCP is equipped with enough potable water to last three days with up
to 12 occupants.
(7) Section 57.11052(d) requires that every refuge area be provided
with compressed air lines, waterlines, suitable hand tools, and
stopping materials. Based on our research, there is no regulatory or
judicial history that explains the purpose behind a requirement for
compressed air lines and waterlines. Accordingly, petitioner assumes
that these lines are intended to serve the purpose a reasonably prudent
person, familiar with the mining industry, would expect--to provide a
source of breathable air and potable water to miners inside a refuge
area.
As a matter of simple logic, an operator complies with Sec.
57.11052(d) by prepositioning hand tools and stoping materials inside
the refuge area for future use. Similarly, if air and water could be
prepositioned in a refuge area for future use, the operator would be
complying with the standard. Historically, it was difficult to ensure
that sufficient breathable air and potable water would be available in
a refuge area. Today, the technology behind the ERCP enables the
petitioner to provide a sustainable environment for its miners and a
viable time window for mine rescue teams to reach the ERCP following an
emergency, thereby rendering the requirement for external air
waterlines obsolete--particularly when the ERCP is a supplemental
device in addition to Kensington's existing permanent refuge stations.
(8) Section 57.11052(d) does not specify a minimum quantity, volume
or pressure for air lines and water lines, and the regulation makes no
mention of independent power sources or lengths of time the air and
waterlines need to be available at the refuge area. The standard simply
requires they be provided. The ERCP provides breathable air and potable
water. Kensington already complies with the standards requirement. This
capability to provide known quantities of air and water internally is a
benefit to the ERCP occupants because there is no risk of interrupted
air and water access from external damage to the lines, and the known
quantities allow mine rescue teams to make informed decisions regarding
the length of time that an ERCP can provide a sustainable environment
for its occupants.
(9) Installing air lines and water lines each time the ERCP is
relocated to remain in proximity to the development face would result
in a diminution of safety; however, requested relief provides an
equivalent degree of safety to Sec. 57.11051(d).
Kensington's underground operations take place in a dynamic
environment, and its exploration and development areas are dominated by
self-propelled mobile equipment and blasting activities. At desired
development rates, Kensington typically advances its faces
[[Page 9236]]
in development drifts twice per day, with each advance being a 12-foot
length. If the ERCP will have to be relocated from time to time to
remain in the vicinity of the development face, as contemplated in PFM
#1, the ERCP would have to be relocated on a recurring basis.
(10) Repeated movement of the ERCP puts miners at risk for several
reasons. An ERCP cannot simply be parked on the decline because of its
size--it would block access between the development drift face and the
escapeways. To allow for the decline to remain clear, a cutout into the
rib must be made to park the ERCP, making the relocation more complex.
(11) Damage to the ERCP will put miners at risk as the refuge may
not function as intended. Each time the ERCP is relocated, there is a
potential that the ERCP will be damaged in some manner. Similarly, if a
compressed air line and waterline need to be run and connected to each
new location for the ERCP, there is a chance that the lines or the
connections will be damaged. Potential damage to the ERCP and the
external airline and waterlines increases each time they are moved,
disconnected, rerouted, reconnected, and tested. The risk of damaging
the lines and connectors is eliminated by relying on the ERCP's self-
contained capabilities.
The ERCP can only provide a safety benefit to miners while the
device is operational. To the extent an ERCP is unavailable while being
relocated, that window of non-availability will increase while the air
and water lines are being run, connected and tested for the new
location. As such, complying with Sec. 57.11052(d) with respect to the
relocating of the ERCP will have a detrimental effect on miner safety.
(12) There are significant costs associated with each movement of
an ERCP. The ERCP is roughly 15-feet long, and requires a cutout that
is 30-feet deep. The development costs at Kensington are approximately
$1,500 per foot, meaning that each 30-foot cutout will cost $45,000 to
create. Installing air, water and shotcrete will add to the figure.
Moving the unit will take 2 miners approximately 12 hours, at a labor
cost of $1,136. In total, the average cost to relocate a portable
refuge one time is almost $50,000. To the extent these costs can be
controlled by alleviating redundant or unnecessary requirements,
Coeur's submits this petition.
The petitioner asserts that the alternative method will at all
times provide the same measure of protection as the existing standard.
Sheila McConnell,
Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances.
[FR Doc. 2017-02297 Filed 2-2-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4520-43-P