Electronic Detonators, 2022-2027 [2019-28446]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
2022
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996
List of Subjects
This rule is not a major rule within
the meaning of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996.
Administrative practice and
procedure, Claims, Fraud, Penalties.
Executive Orders 12372 and 13132
This amendment will 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. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 13132,
it is determined that this amendment
does not have sufficient federalism
implications to require consultations or
warrant the preparation of a federalism
summary impact statement.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and
13771
The Department believes that benefits
of the rulemaking outweigh any costs,
and there are no feasible alternatives to
this rulemaking. Pursuant to M–20–05,
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) has determined that
agency regulations that (1) exclusively
implement the annual adjustment, (2)
are consistent with this guidance, and
(3) have an annual impact of less than
$100 million, are generally not
significant regulatory actions under E.O.
12866. Therefore, agencies are generally
not required to submit regulations
satisfying those criteria to OIRA for
review. Further, since those regulations
are not significant regulatory actions
under E.O. 12866, they are not
considered E.O. 13771 regulatory
actions. This regulation satisfies all of
those criteria.
Executive Order 12988
The Department of State has reviewed
the amendment in light of Executive
Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity,
minimize litigation, establish clear legal
standards, and reduce burden.
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES
Executive Order 13175
The Department of State has
determined that this rulemaking will
not have tribal implications, will not
impose substantial direct compliance
costs on Indian tribal governments, and
will not preempt tribal law.
Accordingly, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this rulemaking.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rulemaking does not impose or
revise any information collections
subject to 44 U.S.C. chapter 35.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Jan 13, 2020
Jkt 250001
22 CFR Part 35
Authority: Sections 2, 38, and 42, Pub. L.
90–629, 90 Stat. 744 (22 U.S.C. 2752, 2778,
2791); 22 U.S.C. 401; 22 U.S.C. 2651a; 22
U.S.C. 2779a; 22 U.S.C. 2780; E.O. 13637, 78
FR 16129; Pub. L. 114–74, 129 Stat. 584.
22 CFR Part 103
§ 127.10
Administrative practice and
procedure, Chemicals, Classified
information, Foreign relations, Freedom
of information, International
organization, Investigations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
■
■
22 CFR Part 127
Arms and munitions, Exports.
22 CFR Part 138
Government contracts, Grant
programs, Loan programs, Lobbying,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set forth above, 22
CFR parts 35, 103, 127, and 138 are
amended as follows:
PART 35—PROGRAM FRAUD CIVIL
REMEDIES
1. The authority citation for part 35
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 22 U.S.C. 2651a; 31 U.S.C. 3801
et seq.; Pub. L. 114–74, 129 Stat. 584.
§ 35.3
[Amended]
2. In § 35.3:
a. Remove ‘‘$11,463’’ and add in its
place ‘‘$11,665’’, wherever it occurs.
■ b. In paragraph (f), remove ‘‘$343,903’’
and add in its place ‘‘$349,969’’.
■
■
PART 103—REGULATIONS FOR
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CHEMICAL
WEAPONS CONVENTION AND THE
CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION
IMPLEMENTATION ACT OF 1998 ON
THE TAKING OF SAMPLES AND ON
ENFORCEMENT OF REQUIREMENTS
CONCERNING RECORDKEEPING AND
INSPECTIONS
3. The authority citation for part 103
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 22 U.S.C. 2651a; 22 U.S.C. 6701
et seq.; Pub. L. 114–74, 129 Stat. 584.
§ 103.6
[Amended]
4. In§ 103.6:
a. Remove ‘‘$38,549’’ and add in its
place ‘‘$39,229’’ in paragraph (a)(1); and
■ b. Remove ‘‘$7,710’’ and add in its
place ‘‘$7,846’’ in paragraph (a)(2).
■
■
PART 127—VIOLATIONS AND
PENALTIES
5. The authority citation for part 127
continues to read as follows:
■
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
[Amended]
6. In § 127.10:
a. In paragraph (a)(1)(i), remove
‘‘$1,163,217’’ and add in its place
‘‘$1,183,736’’;
■ b. In paragraph (a)(1)(ii), remove
‘‘$845,764’’ and add in its place
‘‘$860,683’’; and
■ c. In paragraph (a)(1)(iii), remove
‘‘$1,006.699’’ and add in its place
‘‘$1,024,457’’.
PART 138—RESTRICTIONS ON
LOBBYING
7. The authority citation for part 138
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 22 U.S.C. 2651a; 31 U.S.C. 1352;
Pub. L. 114–74, 129 Stat. 584.
§ 138.400
[Amended]
8. In § 138.400:
a. Remove ‘‘$20,134’’ and ‘‘$201,340’’
and add in their place ‘‘$20,489’’ and
‘‘$204,892’’, respectively, wherever they
occur.
■ b. In paragraph (e), remove ‘‘$19,809’’
and add in its place ‘‘$20,158’’.
■
■
Dated: January 8, 2020.
Alicia Frechette,
Executive Director, Office of the Legal Adviser
and Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department
of State.
[FR Doc. 2020–00443 Filed 1–13–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710–10–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration
30 CFR Parts 56 and 57
[Docket No. MSHA–2019–0007]
RIN 1219–AB88
Electronic Detonators
Mine Safety and Health
Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Direct final rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
The Mine Safety and Health
Administration (MSHA) is revising
certain safety standards for explosives at
metal and nonmetal (MNM) mines. This
rule updates existing provisions
consistent with technological
advancements involving electronic
detonators. MSHA is publishing a direct
final rule because the Agency expects
that there will be no significant adverse
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\14JAR1.SGM
14JAR1
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
comments on the rule. Elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register, MSHA is
publishing a companion proposed rule
for notice and comment rulemaking to
provide a procedural framework to
finalize the rule in the event that the
Agency receives significant adverse
comment and withdraws this direct
final rule. The companion proposed rule
and the direct final rule are
substantially identical.
DATES: This direct final rule is effective
on March 16, 2020 unless substantive
adverse comments are received or
postmarked by midnight Eastern
Standard Time on February 13, 2020. If
adverse comment is received, MSHA
will publish a timely withdrawal of the
rule in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments and
informational materials, identified by
RIN 1219–AB88 or Docket No. MSHA–
2019–0007, by one of the following
methods listed below:
• Federal E-Rulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• Email: zzMSHA-comments@
dol.gov.
• Mail: MSHA, Office of Standards,
Regulations, and Variances, 201 12th
Street South, Suite 4E401, Arlington,
Virginia 22202–5452.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: 201 12th
Street South, Suite 4E401, Arlington,
Virginia, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m. Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. Sign in at the
receptionist’s desk on the 4th floor East,
Suite 4E401.
Instructions: All submissions for the
direct final rule must include RIN 1219–
AB88 or Docket No. MSHA–2019–0007.
MSHA posts all comments without
change, including any personal
information provided. Access comments
electronically on https://
www.regulations.gov and on MSHA’s
website at https://www.msha.gov/
regulations/rulemaking.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov or https://
www.msha.gov/currentcomments.asp.
To read background documents, go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Review
comments in person at the Office of
Standards, Regulations, and Variances,
201 12th Street South, Suite 4E401,
Arlington, Virginia 22202–5452. Sign in
at the receptionist’s desk on the 4th
floor East, Suite 4E401.
Email Notification: To subscribe to
receive email notification when MSHA
publishes rulemaking documents in the
Federal Register, go to https://
public.govdelivery.com/accounts/
USDOL/subscriber/new.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Jan 13, 2020
Jkt 250001
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sheila A. McConnell, Director, Office of
Standards, Regulations, and Variances,
MSHA, at mcconnell.sheila.a@dol.gov
(email), 202–693–9440 (voice); or 202–
693–9441 (facsimile). These are not tollfree numbers.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Direct Final Rule
Concurrent with this direct final rule,
MSHA is publishing a separate,
substantially identical proposed rule in
the Proposed Rules section of this
Federal Register edition. The
concurrent publication of these
documents will speed notice and
comment rulemaking under 30 U.S.C.
811 and the Administrative Procedure
Act (see 5 U.S.C. 553) should the
Agency decide to withdraw the direct
final rule. All interested parties who
wish to comment should comment at
this time because MSHA does not
anticipate initiating an additional
comment period.
MSHA has determined that notice and
public comment are unnecessary
because the rule imposes no new
requirements; it simply clarifies the
application of MSHA’s existing
standards to technologies developed
after the standards were promulgated.
For this reason, MSHA believes good
cause exists to dispense with notice and
comment and proceed with a direct
final rule.
If MSHA does not receive significant
adverse comments on or before February
13, 2020, the Agency will publish a
notification in the Federal Register no
later than March 16, 2020, confirming
the effective date of the direct final rule.
For purposes of this direct final rule,
a significant adverse comment is one
that explains why the rule would be
inappropriate, including challenges to
the rule’s underlying premise or
approach, or why it would be
ineffective, less safe than other
alternatives, or unacceptable without a
change. In determining whether a
significant adverse comment merits
withdrawal of this direct final rule,
MSHA will consider whether the
comment raises an issue significant
enough to warrant a substantive
response in a notice-and-comment
process. A comment recommending an
addition to the rule should explain why
this rule would be ineffective, less safe
than other alternatives, or unacceptable
without the addition.
If significant adverse comments are
received, the Agency will publish a
notfication in the Federal Register
withdrawing this direct final rule no
later than March 16, 2020. In the event
the direct final rule is withdrawn, the
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2023
Agency intends to proceed with the
proposed rulemaking by addressing the
comments received and publishing a
final rule. The comment period for the
proposed rule runs concurrently with
that of the direct final rule. Any
comments received under the proposed
rule will be treated as comments
regarding this direct final rule.
Likewise, significant adverse comments
submitted to this direct final rule will be
considered as comments to the
proposed rule. The Agency will
consider such comments in developing
a subsequent final rule.
II. Background
A. General Discussion
A detonator is a device containing a
detonating charge that is used to initiate
an explosion reliably, at a specified
time, and, as applicable, in a prescribed
sequence. There are three types of
detonators primarily used in blasting
operations in MNM mines. These are
non-electric, electric, and electronic
detonators. A non-electric detonator is
designed to initiate explosions without
the use of electric wires. A non-electric
detonator includes devices that use
detonating cords, shock-tube or safety
fuse detonators, or a combination of
these.
An electric detonator uses electrical
currents to initiate detonation. Electrical
currents from the detonator’s lead wires
or connectors ignite an electric match
which in turn ignites a pyrotechnic
delay element that initiates the base
charge. The pyrotechnic delay element
burns at an approximated rate. The
length and composition of the
pyrotechnic delay element control the
approximate rate of burn and thus the
timing. Since the approximate rate of
burn is subject to variation, the timing
accuracy of electric detonators is
affected. Electric detonator systems
typically include a blasting machine
that delivers the electrical current to the
detonator. Circuit testers, such as a
blaster’s galvanometer, are used to
check the continuity and resistance of
the individual detonator and the entire
electric circuit.1
In contrast to electric detonators,
electronic detonator systems do not
have a pyrotechnic delay element.
Electronic detonator systems are
designed to use electronic components
to transmit a firing signal with validated
commands and secure communications
to each detonator, and a detonator
cannot be initiated by other means.
1 MSHA considers detonators fired by a shock
tube and incorporating a pre-programmed
microchip delay rather than a pyrotechnic one to
be electric detonators, not electronic detonators.
E:\FR\FM\14JAR1.SGM
14JAR1
2024
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Typically, each detonator has a
microchip to control sequence timing
and an integrated circuit chip and a
capacitor, internal to each detonator, to
control the blast initiation timing.
Electronic detonators enable exact time
delays between blasts to ensure the blast
energy is used to break rock, reducing
fugitive energy loss in the form of
vibrations.
Unlike non-electric and electric
systems, electronic detonator systems
are uniquely designed by each
manufacturer, which requires that these
devices be used according to
manufacturers’ instructions. Because
these electronic detonator systems
require password log-ins, operators
must authorize persons to initiate the
detonations, which minimizes the
potential for accidental misuse.
Based on MSHA’s experience with the
electronic detonator systems it has
reviewed,2 the Agency has found that
electronic detonator systems have a
number of advantages compared to nonelectric and electric systems, including
greater operator control to limit their
use to authorized personnel, more
precise timing, reduced vibrations, and
a reduced sensitivity to stray electrical
currents and radio frequencies.
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES
B. Rulemaking Background
MSHA’s existing standards in 30 CFR
parts 56 and 57, subpart E, focus on
hazards associated with transporting,
maintaining, using, or working near
explosive materials, including
detonators.
Since 1979, MSHA standards have
defined detonators to mean any device
containing a detonating charge that is
used to initiate an explosive such as
electric blasting caps and non-electrical
instantaneous or delay blasting caps. At
the time these standards were issued,
MSHA believed that the definition
provided for the automatic inclusion of
new detonators as they developed.
Metal and Nonmetal Mine Safety; New
and Revised Definitions and Safety and
Health Standards for Explosives, 44 FR
48535, 48538 (August 17, 1979).
On January 18, 1991, MSHA revised
the definition of detonators in
§§ 56.6000 and 57.6000 (56 FR 2072) to
clarify that the definition does not
include detonating cords and that the
detonators may be either ‘‘Class A’’
(explosives that include devices that
constitute a maximum shipping hazard)
or ‘‘Class C’’ (explosive devices that may
contain Class A explosives, but in
restricted quantities) as classified by the
2 See https://arlweb.msha.gov/TECHSUPP/ACC/
lists/00elecdet.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Jan 13, 2020
Jkt 250001
Department of Transportation (DOT) in
49 CFR 173.53 and 173.100.3
Since MSHA published these rules,
advancements in computer and microprocessing technology have led to
electronic timing of detonations. On
September 28, 2004, MSHA issued
Program Information Bulletin (PIB) No.
P04–20, Electronic Detonators and
Requirements for Shunting and Circuit
Testing, to respond to stakeholder
inquiries concerning how to apply the
MSHA requirements for shunting and
circuit testing to electronic detonators.
In PIB No. P04–20, MSHA reported
results of the Agency’s evaluation of two
electronic detonator systems. MSHA
found that the systems contained their
own integral elements for shunting and
circuit testing, which met the Agency’s
existing standards for shunting and
circuit testing when used as
recommended by the manufacturers.
Since issuing PIB No. P04–20, MSHA
has evaluated several other electronic
detonator systems and determined that
these systems also contain their own
integral elements for shunting and
circuit testing that meet the intended
MSHA requirements when the systems
are used according to the manufacturers’
instructions. Existing MSHA standards
require operators to adhere to
manufacturers’ instructions for all
detonation systems, including new
systems. See 30 CFR 56.6308 and
57.6308; 56 FR 2072, 2081.
C. Regulatory Review and Reform
On February 28, 2008, the Small
Business Administration (SBA) selected
MSHA’s explosives standards for
regulatory review pursuant to its Small
Business Regulatory Review and Reform
Initiative,4 which was designed to
identify existing federal rules that small
business stakeholders believe should be
reviewed and reformed. The MSHA
reform nomination, discussed in the
3 As MSHA was in the process of publishing this
1991 rule, DOT revised its classification
requirements at 49 CFR 173.50 and 173.53 (55 FR
52619) consistent with the United Nations
Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous
Goods, issued December 21, 1990. Under DOT’s
revisions, Class A explosives were reclassified as
‘‘Division 1.1 and Division 1.2’’ to mean explosives
that have a mass explosion hazard (explosion
would affect the entire load instantaneously) or
projection hazard (explosion would result in
projection of fragments). Class C explosives were
reclassified as ‘‘Division 1.4’’ to mean explosives
that have a minor explosion hazard (explosive
effects are confined to the packaging). These revised
definitions form the current classification system
recognized for shipping and packaging explosives
in the U.S.
4 SBA, Office of Advocacy, Report on the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, FY 2007; Annual Report
of the Chief Counsel for Advocacy on
Implementation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
and Executive Order 13272, February 2008.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
SBA’s February 2008 report, stated that
MSHA should update its existing
explosive standards to be consistent
with modern mining industry standards.
The report further noted industry
concerns that MSHA’s existing
standards do not address fundamental
aspects of explosive safety, such as
electronic detonation. On July 30, 2008,
SBA also testified before the House
Subcommittee on Regulations,
Healthcare, and Trade that SBA’s Office
of Advocacy had met with nominated
agencies to discuss the importance of
reviewing and reforming the identified
rules.5
In 2018, the Agency announced its
intent to review existing regulations to
assess compliance costs and reduce
regulatory burden. As part of this
review, MSHA sought stakeholders’
assistance in identifying those
regulations that could be repealed,
replaced, or modified without reducing
miners’ safety or health. MSHA
published on its website, https://
www.msha.gov/provide-or-viewcomments-msha-regulations-repealreplace-or-modify, a notice that the
Agency is seeking assistance in
identifying regulations for review. All
comments are posted on the Agency’s
website.
As a result of this solicitation, MSHA
received comments from the Institute of
Makers of Explosives (IME) requesting
that MSHA modernize its standards to
‘‘properly address’’ electronic
detonators. IME noted that electronic
detonators have been used by the
industry for over two decades and
provide a ‘‘sophisticated level of safety
and security,’’ and recommended
several regulatory modifications to both
coal and MNM standards. Specifically,
IME proposed changes to §§ 56.6000
and 57.6000, the definition of
‘‘Detonator;’’ 56.6310, Misfire waiting
period; 57.6407, Circuit testing; 57.6604,
Precautions during storms; 75.1310,
Explosives and blasting equipment; and
77.1303, Explosives, handling and use.
For this rulemaking, MSHA addresses
the use of electronic detonators in MNM
surface and underground mines and
modifies §§ 56.6000 and 57.6000, the
definition of ‘‘Detonator;’’ 56.6310 and
57.6310, Misfire waiting period; 56.6407
and 57.6407, Circuit testing; and
57.6604, Precautions during storms.
MSHA is amending certain portions of
the explosives standards to include
electronic detonators. However, the
5 Testimony of the Honorable Thomas M.
Sullivan, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, U.S. Small
Business Administration, U.S. House of
Representatives, Committee on Small Business,
Subcommittee on Regulations, Health Care, and
Trade, July 30, 2008.
E:\FR\FM\14JAR1.SGM
14JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES
other explosives standards in subparts E
in 30 CFR parts 56 and 57 continue to
apply to electronic detonators.
For those electronic detonators that
the Agency has reviewed, MSHA agrees
with IME that electronic detonators
provide a working environment that is
as safe or safer for miners compared to
non-electric and electric detonators
because they provide for greater control
of a blast.6 MSHA believes that
recognizing electronic detonator
systems as distinct from electric
detonators will eliminate confusion over
certain regulatory requirements. For
example, §§ 56.6401 and 57.6401 and
56.6407 and 57.6407 require that
electric detonators be shunted and
tested to provide protection against
premature detonation caused by
extraneous current flowing through
portions of the circuit as they are
prepared. Operators use a galvanometer
or other instrument to test electric
circuits to determine whether an
individual series circuit is continuous,
to locate broken wires and connections,
and to avoid introducing excessive
current to the circuit. 56 FR 2082–83.
However, the electronic detonator
systems that MSHA has reviewed
contain their own integral elements for
shunting and circuit testing that exceed
the safety protections in MSHA’s
requirements when the systems are used
according to the manufacturer’s
instructions. These systems, typically,
are designed with an integrated circuit
and a capacitor system internally wired
to each electronic detonator, which
isolates the base charge from the wires
leading to the internal capacitors and
microchip, making shunting
unnecessary.
In addition, based on MSHA’s
experience, the Agency has found that
electronic detonator systems inherently
provide more protection than MSHA’s
shunting and circuit testing standards
do for electric detonators because
electronic detonator systems
communicate digitally to each detonator
and are designed to prevent interference
from stray currents and other
electromagnetic interference.
Additionally, electronic detonators are
less likely to be misused because they
cannot be fired simply by a battery or
by other routine electric sources.
6 See Program Information Bulletin No. P04–20,
Electronic Detonators and Requirements for
Shunting and Circuit Testing. In addition, the U.S.
Department of the Interior’s Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE)
published a study in 2013 that concluded that
electronic detonators are more accurate and precise
than the non-electric systems. (Field Testing and
Analysis of Blasts Utilizing Short Delays with
Electronic Detonators (Lusk, Silva, and Eltschlager
(September 2013)).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Jan 13, 2020
Jkt 250001
III. Section-by-Section Analysis
A. Sections 56.6000 and 57.6000—
Definitions
In §§ 56.6000 and 57.6000, the
definition for Detonator is modified by
adding the words ‘‘electronic
detonators,’’ before the word ‘‘electric’’
in the second sentence of the paragraph.
Also, in § 56.6000 a comma is added
after the word ‘‘caps’’ in the second
sentence.
The addition of the term ‘‘electronic
detonators’’ to §§ 56.6000 and 57.6000,
Detonator, modernizes the definition by
including electronic detonators. The
addition of a comma in § 56.6000 is for
clarity and to conform with the
definition of Detonator in § 57.6000.
B. Sections 56.6310 and 57.6310—
Misfire Waiting Period
Sections 56.6310 and 57.6310 require
that in the event of a misfire while
blasting, personnel must wait a specific
time period based on the type of
detonator being used before entering the
blast area for safety. Under §§ 56.6310
and 57.6310, a new paragraph (c) is
added that requires a 30 minute waiting
period, or for the manufacturerrecommended time, whichever is
longer, in the event of a misfire while
blasting with an electronic detonator.
MSHA believes that waiting at least
30 minutes before entering a blast area
if electronic detonators are involved in
a misfire provides personnel an
adequate amount of time to analyze the
circumstances of the misfire and to
develop a plan of action to safely enter
the blast area. In MSHA’s experience,
this waiting period is consistent with
industry-recommended standards.7 In
the event that an electronic detonator
manufacturer recommends more than a
30-minute waiting period if a misfire
occurs using its electronic detonators,
persons must follow the manufacturer’s
recommended wait time before entering
the blast area. This is consistent with
§§ 56.6308 and 57.6308, requiring
persons to follow manufacturer’s
instructions for using detonation
systems.
C. Sections 56.6407 and 57.6407—
Circuit Testing
Sections 56.6407 and 57.6407 require
that electric blasting circuits be tested to
ensure the circuits are properly wired.
Under § 56.6407(a) and (c), the words
‘‘or electronic’’ are added.
Under § 57.6407(a)(3) and (b)(2), the
words ‘‘or electronic’’ are added.
7 Institute of Makers of Explosives, Safety Library
Publication No. 4, Warnings and Instructions for
Consumers in Transporting, Storing, Handling, and
Using Explosive Materials (October 2016).
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2025
A blasting galvanometer is used to test
electric detonator circuits to prevent
misfires by determining whether an
individual series circuit is continuous
and by locating broken wires and
connections. A blasting galvanometer or
other appropriate type of testing
equipment is used to avoid introducing
excessive current into the circuit. This
differs from the electronic detonator
systems the Agency has reviewed
because these systems have a means for
circuit testing incorporated into their
designs. The Agency anticipates that
other electronic detonator systems
MSHA has not reviewed also have
integral circuit testing mechanisms.
While revising the standard would
clarify that the circuit-testing
requirement applies to electronic
detonator systems, the Agency believes
that most or all electronic detonator
systems already comply with this safety
standard. This change does not require
that electronic detonator systems with
integral circuit testing be tested
additionally with a galvanometer or
other outside mechanism.
D. Section 57.6604(b)—Precautions
During Storms
Under § 57.6604, underground
electrical blasting operations must be
suspended during the approach and
progress of an electrical storm.
Electromagnetic fields and stray
currents can be generated from
lightning. Higher energy levels of
electromagnetic interference and stray
current are generally disruptive or
damaging to electronic equipment.
Based on MSHA’s experience with the
electronic detonators it has examined,
electronic detonator systems and
technologies generally have the base
charge isolated from the wires leading to
the internal capacitors and microchip
providing built-in protection from
interference from electromagnetic fields
and stray current. However, MSHA is
aware that an electromagnetic pulse,
such as lightning strikes traveling
through underground mines by paths
such as air lines, water lines, and
conductive ore bodies, can damage all
types of detonators and equipment and
cause misfires. Therefore, for
§ 57.6604(b), the words ‘‘electronic or’’
are added after the word
‘‘Underground’’.
The Agency believes that most or all
electronic detonator systems are
designed to minimize or eliminate the
possibility that lightning could initiate a
blast; many systems may not be capable
of being initiated by lightning. In
addition, to the extent these systems are
capable of being initiated by lightning,
MSHA believes that operators already
E:\FR\FM\14JAR1.SGM
14JAR1
2026
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
have been applying these requirements
to electronic detonator systems through
manufacturers’ directions and accepted
industry practices. MSHA believes the
revision will have little or no actual
impact on operators’ existing practices
and simply eliminates ambiguity in the
requirements under § 57.6604(b).
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES
III. Regulatory Economic Analysis
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.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Office of
lnformation and Regulatory Affairs
designated this rule as not a ‘major rule’,
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
MSHA has assessed the costs and
benefits of the changes and has
determined that there are no costs
associated with this direct final rule.
Currently, electronic detonators have
been used by the mining industry for
more than 20 years and account for at
least 15 percent of the blast initiation
systems used in the U.S. in all
industries.8 As part of the Agency’s
regulatory reform efforts, MSHA
received comments from industry
representatives supporting the changes.
This direct final rule codifies activity
already undertaken by the mining
industry regarding electronic
detonators. This rulemaking is a
deregulatory action under E.O. 13771 in
its effects.
This direct final rule will not increase
or decrease the costs or benefits
associated with the use of electronic
detonators; however, this action will
eliminate ambiguity about detonator
options in the application of existing
requirements so that mine operators will
be able to use their resources more
efficiently when making business
decisions.
Among other things, this direct final
rule clarifies the nonapplicability of
certain MSHA standards to electronic
detonating systems. For example, while
the new ‘‘circuit testing’’ standard now
makes clear that the standard
8 U.S. Geological Survey, Minerals Yearbook,
Explosive Consumption Report (2015–2016).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Jan 13, 2020
Jkt 250001
contemplates electronic detonating
systems as well as electric detonators,
the preamble clarifies that most or all of
these electronic systems inherently
comply and that, therefore, the specific
actions operators must take when using
electric detonators generally need not be
taken for electronic detonating systems.
Likewise, while this rulemaking does
not directly address MSHA’s shunting
standards, the preamble clarifies that,
while those standards require operators
to take specific actions when using
electric detonators, they are not
applicable to inherently compliant
electronic detonating systems. Through
these clarifications, MSHA will ensure
the safety advantages offered by the use
of electronic detonators are available to
mine operators, including greater
operator control to limit use to
authorized personnel, more precise
timing, reduced vibrations, and a
reduced sensitivity to stray electrical
currents and radio frequencies.
Furthermore, consistent with the
directive in E.O. 13777, this direct final
rule will update outdated regulations
and accommodate technological
advances.
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 is an ‘‘other significant’’
regulatory action under E.O. 12866.
IV. Feasibility
MSHA has concluded that the
requirements of the direct final rule
would be both technologically and
economically feasible because the
requirements are already generally
accepted industry practices for the use
of electronic detonators.
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 direct final rule on small entities.
Based on that analysis, MSHA certifies
that the rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
because it does not impose any new
costs. Therefore, the Agency is not
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
required to develop an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis.
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
provides for the Federal Government’s
collection, use, and dissemination of
information. The goals of the PRA
include minimizing paperwork and
reporting burdens and ensuring the
maximum possible utility from the
information that is collected (44 U.S.C.
3501). There are no information
collections associated with this direct
final rule.
VII. Other Regulatory Considerations
A. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995
MSHA has reviewed the direct final
rule under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et
seq.). MSHA has determined that this
direct final rule does 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 (adjusted for
inflation) 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. Since the direct final rule does
not cost over $100 million in any one
year, the rule is not a major rule under
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995.
B. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
The direct final 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. Executive Order 12630: Government
Actions and Interference With
Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights
The direct final rule does not
implement a policy with takings
implications. Accordingly, under E.O.
12630, no further Agency action or
analysis is required.
D. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice
Reform
The direct final rule was written to
provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct and was carefully
reviewed to eliminate drafting errors
E:\FR\FM\14JAR1.SGM
14JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
and ambiguities, so as to minimize
litigation and undue burden on the
Federal court system. Accordingly, the
rule meets the applicable standards
provided in section 3 of E.O. 12988,
Civil Justice Reform.
E. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This direct final 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.
F. 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 direct
final rule for its energy effects because
the rule applies to the metal and
nonmetal mining sector. MSHA has
concluded that it is not 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.
G. Executive Order 13272: Proper
Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking
MSHA has thoroughly reviewed the
direct final 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 direct final rule
does not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES
List of Subjects
30 CFR Part 56
Chemicals, Electric power,
Explosives, Fire prevention, Hazardous
substances, Metals, Mine safety and
health, Noise control, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
30 CFR Part 57
Chemicals, Electric power,
Explosives, Fire prevention, Gases,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Jan 13, 2020
Jkt 250001
Hazardous substances, Metals, Mine
safety and health, Noise control,
Radiation protection, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, and under the authority of the
Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of
1977, as amended by the Mine
Improvement and New Emergency
Response Act of 2006, MSHA is
amending chapter I of title 30 of the
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 56—SAFETY AND HEALTH
STANDARDS—SURFACE METAL AND
NONMETAL MINES
1. The authority citation for part 56
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811.
2. In § 56.6000, revise the definition
for ‘‘Detonator’’ to read as follows:
§ 57.6000
2027
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Detonator. Any device containing a
detonating charge used to initiate an
explosive. These devices include
electronic detonators, electric or
nonelectric instantaneous or delay
blasting caps, and delay connectors. The
term ‘‘detonator’’ does not include
detonating cord. Detonators may be
either ‘‘Class A’’ detonators or ‘‘Class C’’
detonators, as classified by the
Department of Transportation in 49 CFR
173.53 and 173.100, which is available
at any MSHA Metal and Nonmetal
Safety and Health district office.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 7. In § 57.6310, revise paragraphs (a)
and (b) and add paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
■
§ 56.6000
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
Detonator. Any device containing a
detonating charge used to initiate an
explosive. These devices include
electronic detonators, electric or
nonelectric instantaneous or delay
blasting caps, and delay connectors. The
term ‘‘detonator’’ does not include
detonating cord. Detonators may be
either ‘‘Class A’’ detonators or ‘‘Class C’’
detonators, as classified by the
Department of Transportation in 49 CFR
173.53 and 173.100, which is available
at any MSHA Metal and Nonmetal
Safety and Health district office.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. In § 56.6310, revise paragraphs (a)
and (b) and add paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Misfire waiting period.
*
*
*
*
*
(a) For 30 minutes if safety fuse and
blasting caps are used;
(b) For 15 minutes if any other type
detonators are used; or
(c) For 30 minutes if electronic
detonators are used, or for the
manufacturer-recommended time,
whichever is longer.
§ 56.6407
[Amended]
PART 57—SAFETY AND HEALTH
STANDARDS—UNDERGROUND
METAL AND NONMETAL MINES
5. The authority citation for part 57
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811.
6. In § 57.6000, revise the definition
for ‘‘Detonator’’ to read as follows:
■
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
*
*
*
*
(a) For 30 minutes if safety fuse and
blasting caps are used;
(b) For 15 minutes if any other type
detonators are used; or
(c) For 30 minutes if electronic
detonators are used, or for the
manufacturer-recommended time,
whichever is longer.
§ 57.6407
[Amended]
8. In § 57.6407, amend paragraphs
(a)(3) and (b)(2) by adding the words ‘‘or
electronic’’ after the word ‘‘electric’’.
■
§ 57.6604
[Amended]
9. In § 57.6604, amend paragraph (b)
by adding the words ‘‘electronic or’’
after the word ‘‘Underground’’.
■
David G. Zatezalo,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety
and Health Administration.
[FR Doc. 2019–28446 Filed 1–13–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4520–43–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 100
[Docket Number USCG–2018–1008]
4. In § 56.6407, amend paragraphs (a)
and (c) by adding the words ‘‘or
electronic’’ after the word ‘‘electric’’.
■
PO 00000
Misfire waiting period.
*
*
§ 56.6310
§ 57.6310
Sfmt 4700
RIN 1625–AA08
Special Local Regulations; Sector
Upper Mississippi River Annual and
Recurring Marine Events Update
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard is amending
and updating the listing of annual and
recurring marine events that take place
within the Eighth Coast Guard District
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\14JAR1.SGM
14JAR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 14, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2022-2027]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-28446]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration
30 CFR Parts 56 and 57
[Docket No. MSHA-2019-0007]
RIN 1219-AB88
Electronic Detonators
AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Direct final rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is revising
certain safety standards for explosives at metal and nonmetal (MNM)
mines. This rule updates existing provisions consistent with
technological advancements involving electronic detonators. MSHA is
publishing a direct final rule because the Agency expects that there
will be no significant adverse
[[Page 2023]]
comments on the rule. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register,
MSHA is publishing a companion proposed rule for notice and comment
rulemaking to provide a procedural framework to finalize the rule in
the event that the Agency receives significant adverse comment and
withdraws this direct final rule. The companion proposed rule and the
direct final rule are substantially identical.
DATES: This direct final rule is effective on March 16, 2020 unless
substantive adverse comments are received or postmarked by midnight
Eastern Standard Time on February 13, 2020. If adverse comment is
received, MSHA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the
Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments and informational materials, identified by
RIN 1219-AB88 or Docket No. MSHA-2019-0007, by one of the following
methods listed below:
Federal E-Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
Email: [email protected].
Mail: MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and
Variances, 201 12th Street South, Suite 4E401, Arlington, Virginia
22202-5452.
Hand Delivery or Courier: 201 12th Street South, Suite
4E401, Arlington, Virginia, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. Sign in at the receptionist's
desk on the 4th floor East, Suite 4E401.
Instructions: All submissions for the direct final rule must
include RIN 1219-AB88 or Docket No. MSHA-2019-0007. MSHA posts all
comments without change, including any personal information provided.
Access comments electronically on https://www.regulations.gov and on
MSHA's website at https://www.msha.gov/regulations/rulemaking.
Docket: For access to the docket to read comments received, go to
https://www.regulations.gov or https://www.msha.gov/currentcomments.asp.
To read background documents, go to https://www.regulations.gov. Review
comments in person at the Office of Standards, Regulations, and
Variances, 201 12th Street South, Suite 4E401, Arlington, Virginia
22202-5452. Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the 4th floor East,
Suite 4E401.
Email Notification: To subscribe to receive email notification when
MSHA publishes rulemaking documents in the Federal Register, go to
https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDOL/subscriber/new.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sheila A. McConnell, Director, Office
of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at
[email protected] (email), 202-693-9440 (voice); or 202-693-
9441 (facsimile). These are not toll-free numbers.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Direct Final Rule
Concurrent with this direct final rule, MSHA is publishing a
separate, substantially identical proposed rule in the Proposed Rules
section of this Federal Register edition. The concurrent publication of
these documents will speed notice and comment rulemaking under 30
U.S.C. 811 and the Administrative Procedure Act (see 5 U.S.C. 553)
should the Agency decide to withdraw the direct final rule. All
interested parties who wish to comment should comment at this time
because MSHA does not anticipate initiating an additional comment
period.
MSHA has determined that notice and public comment are unnecessary
because the rule imposes no new requirements; it simply clarifies the
application of MSHA's existing standards to technologies developed
after the standards were promulgated. For this reason, MSHA believes
good cause exists to dispense with notice and comment and proceed with
a direct final rule.
If MSHA does not receive significant adverse comments on or before
February 13, 2020, the Agency will publish a notification in the
Federal Register no later than March 16, 2020, confirming the effective
date of the direct final rule.
For purposes of this direct final rule, a significant adverse
comment is one that explains why the rule would be inappropriate,
including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or
why it would be ineffective, less safe than other alternatives, or
unacceptable without a change. In determining whether a significant
adverse comment merits withdrawal of this direct final rule, MSHA will
consider whether the comment raises an issue significant enough to
warrant a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. A
comment recommending an addition to the rule should explain why this
rule would be ineffective, less safe than other alternatives, or
unacceptable without the addition.
If significant adverse comments are received, the Agency will
publish a notfication in the Federal Register withdrawing this direct
final rule no later than March 16, 2020. In the event the direct final
rule is withdrawn, the Agency intends to proceed with the proposed
rulemaking by addressing the comments received and publishing a final
rule. The comment period for the proposed rule runs concurrently with
that of the direct final rule. Any comments received under the proposed
rule will be treated as comments regarding this direct final rule.
Likewise, significant adverse comments submitted to this direct final
rule will be considered as comments to the proposed rule. The Agency
will consider such comments in developing a subsequent final rule.
II. Background
A. General Discussion
A detonator is a device containing a detonating charge that is used
to initiate an explosion reliably, at a specified time, and, as
applicable, in a prescribed sequence. There are three types of
detonators primarily used in blasting operations in MNM mines. These
are non-electric, electric, and electronic detonators. A non-electric
detonator is designed to initiate explosions without the use of
electric wires. A non-electric detonator includes devices that use
detonating cords, shock-tube or safety fuse detonators, or a
combination of these.
An electric detonator uses electrical currents to initiate
detonation. Electrical currents from the detonator's lead wires or
connectors ignite an electric match which in turn ignites a pyrotechnic
delay element that initiates the base charge. The pyrotechnic delay
element burns at an approximated rate. The length and composition of
the pyrotechnic delay element control the approximate rate of burn and
thus the timing. Since the approximate rate of burn is subject to
variation, the timing accuracy of electric detonators is affected.
Electric detonator systems typically include a blasting machine that
delivers the electrical current to the detonator. Circuit testers, such
as a blaster's galvanometer, are used to check the continuity and
resistance of the individual detonator and the entire electric
circuit.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ MSHA considers detonators fired by a shock tube and
incorporating a pre-programmed microchip delay rather than a
pyrotechnic one to be electric detonators, not electronic
detonators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast to electric detonators, electronic detonator systems do
not have a pyrotechnic delay element. Electronic detonator systems are
designed to use electronic components to transmit a firing signal with
validated commands and secure communications to each detonator, and a
detonator cannot be initiated by other means.
[[Page 2024]]
Typically, each detonator has a microchip to control sequence timing
and an integrated circuit chip and a capacitor, internal to each
detonator, to control the blast initiation timing. Electronic
detonators enable exact time delays between blasts to ensure the blast
energy is used to break rock, reducing fugitive energy loss in the form
of vibrations.
Unlike non-electric and electric systems, electronic detonator
systems are uniquely designed by each manufacturer, which requires that
these devices be used according to manufacturers' instructions. Because
these electronic detonator systems require password log-ins, operators
must authorize persons to initiate the detonations, which minimizes the
potential for accidental misuse.
Based on MSHA's experience with the electronic detonator systems it
has reviewed,\2\ the Agency has found that electronic detonator systems
have a number of advantages compared to non-electric and electric
systems, including greater operator control to limit their use to
authorized personnel, more precise timing, reduced vibrations, and a
reduced sensitivity to stray electrical currents and radio frequencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See https://arlweb.msha.gov/TECHSUPP/ACC/lists/00elecdet.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Rulemaking Background
MSHA's existing standards in 30 CFR parts 56 and 57, subpart E,
focus on hazards associated with transporting, maintaining, using, or
working near explosive materials, including detonators.
Since 1979, MSHA standards have defined detonators to mean any
device containing a detonating charge that is used to initiate an
explosive such as electric blasting caps and non-electrical
instantaneous or delay blasting caps. At the time these standards were
issued, MSHA believed that the definition provided for the automatic
inclusion of new detonators as they developed. Metal and Nonmetal Mine
Safety; New and Revised Definitions and Safety and Health Standards for
Explosives, 44 FR 48535, 48538 (August 17, 1979).
On January 18, 1991, MSHA revised the definition of detonators in
Sec. Sec. 56.6000 and 57.6000 (56 FR 2072) to clarify that the
definition does not include detonating cords and that the detonators
may be either ``Class A'' (explosives that include devices that
constitute a maximum shipping hazard) or ``Class C'' (explosive devices
that may contain Class A explosives, but in restricted quantities) as
classified by the Department of Transportation (DOT) in 49 CFR 173.53
and 173.100.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ As MSHA was in the process of publishing this 1991 rule, DOT
revised its classification requirements at 49 CFR 173.50 and 173.53
(55 FR 52619) consistent with the United Nations Recommendations on
the Transport of Dangerous Goods, issued December 21, 1990. Under
DOT's revisions, Class A explosives were reclassified as ``Division
1.1 and Division 1.2'' to mean explosives that have a mass explosion
hazard (explosion would affect the entire load instantaneously) or
projection hazard (explosion would result in projection of
fragments). Class C explosives were reclassified as ``Division 1.4''
to mean explosives that have a minor explosion hazard (explosive
effects are confined to the packaging). These revised definitions
form the current classification system recognized for shipping and
packaging explosives in the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since MSHA published these rules, advancements in computer and
micro-processing technology have led to electronic timing of
detonations. On September 28, 2004, MSHA issued Program Information
Bulletin (PIB) No. P04-20, Electronic Detonators and Requirements for
Shunting and Circuit Testing, to respond to stakeholder inquiries
concerning how to apply the MSHA requirements for shunting and circuit
testing to electronic detonators. In PIB No. P04-20, MSHA reported
results of the Agency's evaluation of two electronic detonator systems.
MSHA found that the systems contained their own integral elements for
shunting and circuit testing, which met the Agency's existing standards
for shunting and circuit testing when used as recommended by the
manufacturers. Since issuing PIB No. P04-20, MSHA has evaluated several
other electronic detonator systems and determined that these systems
also contain their own integral elements for shunting and circuit
testing that meet the intended MSHA requirements when the systems are
used according to the manufacturers' instructions. Existing MSHA
standards require operators to adhere to manufacturers' instructions
for all detonation systems, including new systems. See 30 CFR 56.6308
and 57.6308; 56 FR 2072, 2081.
C. Regulatory Review and Reform
On February 28, 2008, the Small Business Administration (SBA)
selected MSHA's explosives standards for regulatory review pursuant to
its Small Business Regulatory Review and Reform Initiative,\4\ which
was designed to identify existing federal rules that small business
stakeholders believe should be reviewed and reformed. The MSHA reform
nomination, discussed in the SBA's February 2008 report, stated that
MSHA should update its existing explosive standards to be consistent
with modern mining industry standards. The report further noted
industry concerns that MSHA's existing standards do not address
fundamental aspects of explosive safety, such as electronic detonation.
On July 30, 2008, SBA also testified before the House Subcommittee on
Regulations, Healthcare, and Trade that SBA's Office of Advocacy had
met with nominated agencies to discuss the importance of reviewing and
reforming the identified rules.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ SBA, Office of Advocacy, Report on the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, FY 2007; Annual Report of the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy on Implementation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and
Executive Order 13272, February 2008.
\5\ Testimony of the Honorable Thomas M. Sullivan, Chief Counsel
for Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration, U.S. House of
Representatives, Committee on Small Business, Subcommittee on
Regulations, Health Care, and Trade, July 30, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2018, the Agency announced its intent to review existing
regulations to assess compliance costs and reduce regulatory burden. As
part of this review, MSHA sought stakeholders' assistance in
identifying those regulations that could be repealed, replaced, or
modified without reducing miners' safety or health. MSHA published on
its website, https://www.msha.gov/provide-or-view-comments-msha-regulations-repeal-replace-or-modify, a notice that the Agency is
seeking assistance in identifying regulations for review. All comments
are posted on the Agency's website.
As a result of this solicitation, MSHA received comments from the
Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME) requesting that MSHA modernize
its standards to ``properly address'' electronic detonators. IME noted
that electronic detonators have been used by the industry for over two
decades and provide a ``sophisticated level of safety and security,''
and recommended several regulatory modifications to both coal and MNM
standards. Specifically, IME proposed changes to Sec. Sec. 56.6000 and
57.6000, the definition of ``Detonator;'' 56.6310, Misfire waiting
period; 57.6407, Circuit testing; 57.6604, Precautions during storms;
75.1310, Explosives and blasting equipment; and 77.1303, Explosives,
handling and use.
For this rulemaking, MSHA addresses the use of electronic
detonators in MNM surface and underground mines and modifies Sec. Sec.
56.6000 and 57.6000, the definition of ``Detonator;'' 56.6310 and
57.6310, Misfire waiting period; 56.6407 and 57.6407, Circuit testing;
and 57.6604, Precautions during storms. MSHA is amending certain
portions of the explosives standards to include electronic detonators.
However, the
[[Page 2025]]
other explosives standards in subparts E in 30 CFR parts 56 and 57
continue to apply to electronic detonators.
For those electronic detonators that the Agency has reviewed, MSHA
agrees with IME that electronic detonators provide a working
environment that is as safe or safer for miners compared to non-
electric and electric detonators because they provide for greater
control of a blast.\6\ MSHA believes that recognizing electronic
detonator systems as distinct from electric detonators will eliminate
confusion over certain regulatory requirements. For example, Sec. Sec.
56.6401 and 57.6401 and 56.6407 and 57.6407 require that electric
detonators be shunted and tested to provide protection against
premature detonation caused by extraneous current flowing through
portions of the circuit as they are prepared. Operators use a
galvanometer or other instrument to test electric circuits to determine
whether an individual series circuit is continuous, to locate broken
wires and connections, and to avoid introducing excessive current to
the circuit. 56 FR 2082-83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Program Information Bulletin No. P04-20, Electronic
Detonators and Requirements for Shunting and Circuit Testing. In
addition, the U.S. Department of the Interior's Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) published a study in 2013
that concluded that electronic detonators are more accurate and
precise than the non-electric systems. (Field Testing and Analysis
of Blasts Utilizing Short Delays with Electronic Detonators (Lusk,
Silva, and Eltschlager (September 2013)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the electronic detonator systems that MSHA has reviewed
contain their own integral elements for shunting and circuit testing
that exceed the safety protections in MSHA's requirements when the
systems are used according to the manufacturer's instructions. These
systems, typically, are designed with an integrated circuit and a
capacitor system internally wired to each electronic detonator, which
isolates the base charge from the wires leading to the internal
capacitors and microchip, making shunting unnecessary.
In addition, based on MSHA's experience, the Agency has found that
electronic detonator systems inherently provide more protection than
MSHA's shunting and circuit testing standards do for electric
detonators because electronic detonator systems communicate digitally
to each detonator and are designed to prevent interference from stray
currents and other electromagnetic interference. Additionally,
electronic detonators are less likely to be misused because they cannot
be fired simply by a battery or by other routine electric sources.
III. Section-by-Section Analysis
A. Sections 56.6000 and 57.6000--Definitions
In Sec. Sec. 56.6000 and 57.6000, the definition for Detonator is
modified by adding the words ``electronic detonators,'' before the word
``electric'' in the second sentence of the paragraph. Also, in Sec.
56.6000 a comma is added after the word ``caps'' in the second
sentence.
The addition of the term ``electronic detonators'' to Sec. Sec.
56.6000 and 57.6000, Detonator, modernizes the definition by including
electronic detonators. The addition of a comma in Sec. 56.6000 is for
clarity and to conform with the definition of Detonator in Sec.
57.6000.
B. Sections 56.6310 and 57.6310--Misfire Waiting Period
Sections 56.6310 and 57.6310 require that in the event of a misfire
while blasting, personnel must wait a specific time period based on the
type of detonator being used before entering the blast area for safety.
Under Sec. Sec. 56.6310 and 57.6310, a new paragraph (c) is added that
requires a 30 minute waiting period, or for the manufacturer-
recommended time, whichever is longer, in the event of a misfire while
blasting with an electronic detonator.
MSHA believes that waiting at least 30 minutes before entering a
blast area if electronic detonators are involved in a misfire provides
personnel an adequate amount of time to analyze the circumstances of
the misfire and to develop a plan of action to safely enter the blast
area. In MSHA's experience, this waiting period is consistent with
industry-recommended standards.\7\ In the event that an electronic
detonator manufacturer recommends more than a 30-minute waiting period
if a misfire occurs using its electronic detonators, persons must
follow the manufacturer's recommended wait time before entering the
blast area. This is consistent with Sec. Sec. 56.6308 and 57.6308,
requiring persons to follow manufacturer's instructions for using
detonation systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Institute of Makers of Explosives, Safety Library
Publication No. 4, Warnings and Instructions for Consumers in
Transporting, Storing, Handling, and Using Explosive Materials
(October 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Sections 56.6407 and 57.6407--Circuit Testing
Sections 56.6407 and 57.6407 require that electric blasting
circuits be tested to ensure the circuits are properly wired. Under
Sec. 56.6407(a) and (c), the words ``or electronic'' are added.
Under Sec. 57.6407(a)(3) and (b)(2), the words ``or electronic''
are added.
A blasting galvanometer is used to test electric detonator circuits
to prevent misfires by determining whether an individual series circuit
is continuous and by locating broken wires and connections. A blasting
galvanometer or other appropriate type of testing equipment is used to
avoid introducing excessive current into the circuit. This differs from
the electronic detonator systems the Agency has reviewed because these
systems have a means for circuit testing incorporated into their
designs. The Agency anticipates that other electronic detonator systems
MSHA has not reviewed also have integral circuit testing mechanisms.
While revising the standard would clarify that the circuit-testing
requirement applies to electronic detonator systems, the Agency
believes that most or all electronic detonator systems already comply
with this safety standard. This change does not require that electronic
detonator systems with integral circuit testing be tested additionally
with a galvanometer or other outside mechanism.
D. Section 57.6604(b)--Precautions During Storms
Under Sec. 57.6604, underground electrical blasting operations
must be suspended during the approach and progress of an electrical
storm. Electromagnetic fields and stray currents can be generated from
lightning. Higher energy levels of electromagnetic interference and
stray current are generally disruptive or damaging to electronic
equipment. Based on MSHA's experience with the electronic detonators it
has examined, electronic detonator systems and technologies generally
have the base charge isolated from the wires leading to the internal
capacitors and microchip providing built-in protection from
interference from electromagnetic fields and stray current. However,
MSHA is aware that an electromagnetic pulse, such as lightning strikes
traveling through underground mines by paths such as air lines, water
lines, and conductive ore bodies, can damage all types of detonators
and equipment and cause misfires. Therefore, for Sec. 57.6604(b), the
words ``electronic or'' are added after the word ``Underground''.
The Agency believes that most or all electronic detonator systems
are designed to minimize or eliminate the possibility that lightning
could initiate a blast; many systems may not be capable of being
initiated by lightning. In addition, to the extent these systems are
capable of being initiated by lightning, MSHA believes that operators
already
[[Page 2026]]
have been applying these requirements to electronic detonator systems
through manufacturers' directions and accepted industry practices. MSHA
believes the revision will have little or no actual impact on
operators' existing practices and simply eliminates ambiguity in the
requirements under Sec. 57.6604(b).
III. Regulatory Economic Analysis
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.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
the Office of lnformation and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule
as not a `major rule', as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
MSHA has assessed the costs and benefits of the changes and has
determined that there are no costs associated with this direct final
rule. Currently, electronic detonators have been used by the mining
industry for more than 20 years and account for at least 15 percent of
the blast initiation systems used in the U.S. in all industries.\8\ As
part of the Agency's regulatory reform efforts, MSHA received comments
from industry representatives supporting the changes. This direct final
rule codifies activity already undertaken by the mining industry
regarding electronic detonators. This rulemaking is a deregulatory
action under E.O. 13771 in its effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ U.S. Geological Survey, Minerals Yearbook, Explosive
Consumption Report (2015-2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This direct final rule will not increase or decrease the costs or
benefits associated with the use of electronic detonators; however,
this action will eliminate ambiguity about detonator options in the
application of existing requirements so that mine operators will be
able to use their resources more efficiently when making business
decisions.
Among other things, this direct final rule clarifies the
nonapplicability of certain MSHA standards to electronic detonating
systems. For example, while the new ``circuit testing'' standard now
makes clear that the standard contemplates electronic detonating
systems as well as electric detonators, the preamble clarifies that
most or all of these electronic systems inherently comply and that,
therefore, the specific actions operators must take when using electric
detonators generally need not be taken for electronic detonating
systems. Likewise, while this rulemaking does not directly address
MSHA's shunting standards, the preamble clarifies that, while those
standards require operators to take specific actions when using
electric detonators, they are not applicable to inherently compliant
electronic detonating systems. Through these clarifications, MSHA will
ensure the safety advantages offered by the use of electronic
detonators are available to mine operators, including greater operator
control to limit use to authorized personnel, more precise timing,
reduced vibrations, and a reduced sensitivity to stray electrical
currents and radio frequencies. Furthermore, consistent with the
directive in E.O. 13777, this direct final rule will update outdated
regulations and accommodate technological advances.
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 is an ``other
significant'' regulatory action under E.O. 12866.
IV. Feasibility
MSHA has concluded that the requirements of the direct final rule
would be both technologically and economically feasible because the
requirements are already generally accepted industry practices for the
use of electronic detonators.
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 direct
final rule on small entities. Based on that analysis, MSHA certifies
that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities because it does not impose any new
costs. Therefore, the Agency is not required to develop an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis.
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) provides for the Federal
Government's collection, use, and dissemination of information. The
goals of the PRA include minimizing paperwork and reporting burdens and
ensuring the maximum possible utility from the information that is
collected (44 U.S.C. 3501). There are no information collections
associated with this direct final rule.
VII. Other Regulatory Considerations
A. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
MSHA has reviewed the direct final rule under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). MSHA has determined that
this direct final rule does 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 (adjusted for inflation) 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. Since the direct final rule does not cost over $100
million in any one year, the rule is not a major rule under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
B. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
The direct final 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. Executive Order 12630: Government Actions and Interference With
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights
The direct final rule does not implement a policy with takings
implications. Accordingly, under E.O. 12630, no further Agency action
or analysis is required.
D. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
The direct final rule was written to provide a clear legal standard
for affected conduct and was carefully reviewed to eliminate drafting
errors
[[Page 2027]]
and ambiguities, so as to minimize litigation and undue burden on the
Federal court system. Accordingly, the rule meets the applicable
standards provided in section 3 of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform.
E. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This direct final 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.
F. 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 direct final rule for its energy effects because the rule applies
to the metal and nonmetal mining sector. MSHA has concluded that it is
not 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.
G. Executive Order 13272: Proper Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking
MSHA has thoroughly reviewed the direct final 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 direct final rule does not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
List of Subjects
30 CFR Part 56
Chemicals, Electric power, Explosives, Fire prevention, Hazardous
substances, Metals, Mine safety and health, Noise control, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
30 CFR Part 57
Chemicals, Electric power, Explosives, Fire prevention, Gases,
Hazardous substances, Metals, Mine safety and health, Noise control,
Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, and under the authority of
the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, as amended by the Mine
Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006, MSHA is amending
chapter I of title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 56--SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS--SURFACE METAL AND NONMETAL
MINES
0
1. The authority citation for part 56 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811.
0
2. In Sec. 56.6000, revise the definition for ``Detonator'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 56.6000 Definitions.
* * * * *
Detonator. Any device containing a detonating charge used to
initiate an explosive. These devices include electronic detonators,
electric or nonelectric instantaneous or delay blasting caps, and delay
connectors. The term ``detonator'' does not include detonating cord.
Detonators may be either ``Class A'' detonators or ``Class C''
detonators, as classified by the Department of Transportation in 49 CFR
173.53 and 173.100, which is available at any MSHA Metal and Nonmetal
Safety and Health district office.
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec. 56.6310, revise paragraphs (a) and (b) and add paragraph
(c) to read as follows:
Sec. 56.6310 Misfire waiting period.
* * * * *
(a) For 30 minutes if safety fuse and blasting caps are used;
(b) For 15 minutes if any other type detonators are used; or
(c) For 30 minutes if electronic detonators are used, or for the
manufacturer-recommended time, whichever is longer.
Sec. 56.6407 [Amended]
0
4. In Sec. 56.6407, amend paragraphs (a) and (c) by adding the words
``or electronic'' after the word ``electric''.
PART 57--SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS--UNDERGROUND METAL AND
NONMETAL MINES
0
5. The authority citation for part 57 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811.
0
6. In Sec. 57.6000, revise the definition for ``Detonator'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 57.6000 Definitions.
* * * * *
Detonator. Any device containing a detonating charge used to
initiate an explosive. These devices include electronic detonators,
electric or nonelectric instantaneous or delay blasting caps, and delay
connectors. The term ``detonator'' does not include detonating cord.
Detonators may be either ``Class A'' detonators or ``Class C''
detonators, as classified by the Department of Transportation in 49 CFR
173.53 and 173.100, which is available at any MSHA Metal and Nonmetal
Safety and Health district office.
* * * * *
0
7. In Sec. 57.6310, revise paragraphs (a) and (b) and add paragraph
(c) to read as follows:
Sec. 57.6310 Misfire waiting period.
* * * * *
(a) For 30 minutes if safety fuse and blasting caps are used;
(b) For 15 minutes if any other type detonators are used; or
(c) For 30 minutes if electronic detonators are used, or for the
manufacturer-recommended time, whichever is longer.
Sec. 57.6407 [Amended]
0
8. In Sec. 57.6407, amend paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(2) by adding the
words ``or electronic'' after the word ``electric''.
Sec. 57.6604 [Amended]
0
9. In Sec. 57.6604, amend paragraph (b) by adding the words
``electronic or'' after the word ``Underground''.
David G. Zatezalo,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health Administration.
[FR Doc. 2019-28446 Filed 1-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4520-43-P
