Safety Program for Surface Mobile Equipment, 87904-87928 [2023-27640]
Download as PDF
87904
■
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
b. Removing paragraph (i).
The revisions read as follows:
§ 543.32
DATES:
Processing the claim.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Central Office review. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(g) Acceptance of settlement. If you
accept a settlement, you give up your
right to bring a lawsuit against the
United States or against any employee
of the government whose action or lack
of action gave rise to your claim.
(h) Response timeline. Generally, you
will receive a decision regarding your
claim within six months of when you
properly present the claim. If you have
not received a letter either proposing a
settlement or denying your claim within
six months after the date your claim was
presented, you may assume your claim
is denied. You may then proceed to file
a lawsuit in the appropriate United
States District Court.
Daniel J. Crooks III,
Assistant General Counsel/Rules
Administrator, Federal Bureau of Prisons.
[FR Doc. 2023–28011 Filed 12–19–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–05–P
Effective date: The final rule is
effective January 19, 2024.
Compliance date: Compliance with
this final rule is not required until July
17, 2024
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: S.
Aromie Noe, Director, Office of
Standards, Regulations and Variances,
MSHA, at Noe.Song-Ae.A@dol.gov
(email), 202–693–9440 (voice) or 202–
693–9441 (facsimile). These are not tollfree numbers.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Section-by-Section Analysis
III. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review), Executive Order
14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review),
and 13563 (Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review)
IV. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA) and
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act (SBREFA) and Executive
Order 13272: Proper Consideration of
Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking
V. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
VI. Other Regulatory Considerations
VII. References
I. Introduction
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
A. Regulatory Authority
Mine Safety and Health Administration
This final rule is issued under section
101 of the Federal Mine Safety and
Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act), as
amended. 30 U.S.C. 811.
30 CFR Parts 56, 57, and 77
[Docket No. MSHA–2018–0016]
B. Background
RIN 1219–AB91
Safety Program for Surface Mobile
Equipment
Mine Safety and Health
Administration (MSHA), Department of
Labor.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Mine Safety and Health
Administration (MSHA or the Agency)
is requiring that mine operators
develop, implement, and update,
periodically or when necessary, a
written safety program for surface
mobile equipment (excluding belt
conveyors) at surface mines and surface
areas of underground mines. The
written safety program must be
developed and updated with input from
miners and their representatives. The
written safety program must include
actions mine operators will take to
identify hazards and risks to reduce
accidents, injuries, and fatalities related
to surface mobile equipment. The final
rule offers mine operators flexibility to
devise a safety program that is
appropriate for their specific mining
conditions and operations.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Dec 19, 2023
Jkt 262001
A variety of mining equipment is used
at surface mines or in surface areas of
underground mines. Surface mining
vehicles can be very large (many can be
several stories tall) and are capable of
destroying smaller vehicles that cannot
be seen by the vehicle operators.
Accidents involving mining equipment
are a leading cause of fatalities at mines,
although fatalities involving powered
haulage equipment, a type of mobile
equipment, decreased in 2022.1 2 To
reduce the number of accidents, injuries
and fatalities at mines, MSHA
implemented several powered haulage
initiatives—for example, conducting
1 Accidents at mines are classified by MSHA
based on the Agency’s ‘‘Accident Investigation
Procedures Handbook,’’ which defines 21 categories
of mine-related accidents. Most accidents involving
mining equipment are classified under one of two
MSHA accident categories—powered haulage
accidents or machinery accidents—depending on
the type of equipment involved. For more
information, please see MSHA Accident
Investigation Procedures Handbook, December
2020, Appendix 7, Accident Classifications—
available at https:/arlweb.msha.gov/READROOM/
HANDBOOK/PH20-I-4.pdf.
2 MSHA Fatality Reports, https://www.msha.gov/
data-and-reports/fatality-reports/search?page=2.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
safety awareness campaigns, providing
powered haulage guidance and
technical assistance, and disseminating
training materials and best-practices
information that addresses powered
haulage safety. Despite these efforts, in
2023, machinery (mobile) accidents
have still accounted for a significant
number of mining fatalities.
On July 20, 2021, for example, MSHA
hosted a national ‘‘Stand Down for
Safety Day’’ to focus on powered
haulage accidents and vehicle rollovers
to help educate miners, save lives, and
prevent injuries.3 On that day, Mine
Safety and Health Enforcement (MSHE)
and Educational Field and Small Mine
Services (EFSMS) staff visited mines to
meet with miners and operators to
increase awareness of powered haulage
hazards and the need to be familiar with
and follow mine-safety best practices.
On February 28, 2022, MSHA
announced its ‘‘Take Time, Save Lives’’
campaign to remind mine operators to
train miners and ensure miners can take
their time to prevent accidents and
injuries and to save lives.4 As part of the
campaign, mines across the country
received a poster to display at mine sites
with steps operators and miners can
take to stay safe, including actions
related to working around powered
haulage equipment and wearing seat
belts.
In addition, over the years, MSHA has
developed a wide variety of mine safety
and health materials and has made them
available on the Agency’s website
(https://www.msha.gov) and mobile app.5
These materials are intended to assist
trainers and mine operators in
promoting a safe and healthy
environment, and among other topics,
they cover safety topics related to
mobile equipment at surface mines. For
example, MSHA issued Powered
Haulage Equipment Guidance in 2021
intended to help prevent accidents
associated with working with, on, or
3 More information on MSHA’s ‘‘Stand Down for
Safety Day’’ can be found on MSHA’s website at
https://blog.dol.gov/2021/07/14/stop-poweredhaulage-accidents-stay-alert-stay-alive.
4 More information on MSHA’s ‘‘Take Time, Save
Lives’’ campaign can be found on MSHA’s website
at https://www.msha.gov/take-time-save-lives.
5 MSHA’s Miner Safety & Health App gives
miners and mine operators instant access to
information that can help keep them safe and
healthy on the job. The app provides important
safety alerts, safety and health best practices that
apply to their daily work, information on their
rights and responsibilities, and the ability to contact
MSHA with a question or to report an accident or
hazard. The app is available for free on Android
and iPhone mobile devices and can also be found
at the respective app stores by searching for ‘‘Miner
Safety & Health.’’ More information can be found
on MSHA’s website at https://www.msha.gov/
miner-safety-health-application.
E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM
20DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
near powered haulage equipment.6
MSHA also launched an enforcement
initiative focused on powered haulage
by issuing guidance on preventing
accidents and meeting with mine
personnel to emphasize best safety
practices and training.
In April 2022, to complement the
Agency’s awareness initiatives, the
Agency implemented an Enhanced
Enforcement Program to help improve
safety and health in the mining
industry. As a part of MSHA’s regular
inspections, this program focuses on
task training and hazard training for
customer and contract truck drivers and
task training for managers and
supervisors who perform mining tasks.
For example, MSHA inspectors will
observe truck drivers and focus on
enforcing existing standards necessary
to ensure that they perform tasks in a
safe manner at mines.
C. Rulemaking History
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
As part of its overall effort to improve
safety in the use of mining equipment,
MSHA published a request for
information (RFI) on June 26, 2018,
entitled Safety Improvement
Technologies for Mobile Equipment at
Surface Mines, and for Belt Conveyors
at Surface and Underground Mines (83
FR 29716). The RFI focused on
technologies for reducing accidents
involving mobile equipment at surface
mines and surface areas of underground
mines and belt conveyors at surface and
underground mines. The RFI requested
information on what types of
engineering controls are available, how
to implement engineering controls, and
how these controls could be used on
mobile equipment and belt conveyors to
reduce accidents, fatalities, and injuries.
MSHA sought information on
technologies, controls, and training that
provide additional protection from
accidents related to mobile equipment
operation and working near or around
belt conveyors.
To encourage additional public
participation, the Agency held six
stakeholder meetings and one webinar
in August and September 2018. The
meetings were held in Birmingham,
Alabama; Dallas, Texas; Reno, Nevada;
Beckley, West Virginia; Albany, New
York; and Arlington, Virginia.
6 More information on MSHA’s Powered Haulage
Safety Initiative can be found on MSHA’s website
at https://www.msha.gov/safety-and-health/safetyand-health-initiatives/powered-haulage-safety.
MSHA’s guidance on mitigating and preventing
powered haulage equipment accidents, entitled
‘‘Powered Haulage Equipment Safety Guidance,’’
can be found on MSHA’s website at https://
www.msha.gov/sites/default/files/events/
Powered%20Haulage%20Guidance.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Dec 19, 2023
Jkt 262001
Commenters responding to the RFI
supported MSHA’s focused efforts to
improve miner safety related to the
operation of mobile equipment at
surface mines and in surface areas of
underground mines. Some emphasized
the use of technologies to achieve this
goal, such as the use of new
technologies and the use of current
technologies (e.g., collision avoidance
systems, collision warning systems, and
seat belt warning signals used in
automobiles). Others supported the
importance of non-technological
interventions, such as safety programs,
to bring about behavioral and cultural
changes. Commenters differed in how
technological and non-technological
interventions should be implemented.
Some commenters noted that the
application of engineering controls or
technologies needs further review by
MSHA and the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) before any regulatory changes
are made. Other commenters suggested
that the use of new technologies has the
best outcomes when mine operators and
their employees partner with other
stakeholders such as NIOSH and
equipment manufacturers.
In addition, one commenter
underscored the importance of safety
culture at a workplace. This commenter
observed that mine operators who
develop and implement safety programs
do so with the goal of preventing
injuries, fatalities, and the suffering
these accidents cause miners, their
families, and their communities. The
commenter noted that for these mine
operators, preventing harm to their
miners is more than just compliance
with safety requirements; it reflects a
culture of safety. According to the
commenter, this culture of safety
derives from a commitment to a
systematic, effective, and
comprehensive approach to safety
management at mines with the full
participation of miners.
On September 9, 2021, MSHA
published the proposed rule, Safety
Program for Surface Mobile Equipment
(86 FR 50496). In addition to
information gathered from stakeholders
who commented on the RFI, MSHA
based the proposed rule on best
practices and guidance on workplace
safety programs.7 The comment period
7 As part of the proposed rule, MSHA reviewed
safety program guidance materials from several
types of organizations: (1) consensus standards
organizations (e.g., American Society of Safety
Professionals (ASSP), Occupational Health and
Safety Management Systems, ANSI/ASSP Z10–2012
(R2017); and the International Standards
Organization (ISO), Occupational Health and Safety
Management Systems—Requirements With
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
87905
closed on November 8, 2021. On
December 20, 2021, in response to a
public request, MSHA reopened the
rulemaking record for additional
comments, and the Agency held a
virtual public hearing on the proposed
rule on January 11, 2022 (86 FR 71860).
The comment period closed on February
11, 2022.
MSHA’s proposed rule addresses
hazards related to surface mobile
equipment (except belt conveyors) used
at surface mines and surface areas of
underground mines. Surface mobile
equipment in the proposed rule refers to
wheeled, skid-mounted, track-mounted,
or rail mounted equipment capable of
moving or being moved and any
powered equipment that transports
people, equipment, or materials,
excluding belt conveyors, at surface
mines and surface areas of underground
mines. Examples of this equipment
include bulldozers, front-end loaders,
skid steers, excavators, draglines,
graders, and haul trucks.
The proposed rule would require a
written safety program for operators
employing six or more miners. The
proposed written safety program would
list actions that mine operators would
take to identify hazards and reduce
risks, develop equipment maintenance
and repair schedules, evaluate
technologies, and train miners. The
proposal would provide mine operators
with the flexibility to tailor the written
safety program to meet the needs of
their operations and unique mining
conditions. Under the proposal, mine
operators would be required to evaluate
and update the written safety program
whenever necessary to appropriately
manage safety risks associated with
their surface mobile equipment.
MSHA received comments on the
proposed rule from miners, safety
associations, mining associations,
mining companies, manufacturers, labor
unions, and trade associations. (Public
comments and supporting
documentation submitted were posted
on MSHA’s website and at
www.regulations.gov, along with the
transcript from the public hearing.)
Commenters supported MSHA’s efforts
to ensure the safety of all miners from
powered haulage accidents. After
considering the comments, for the
reasons discussed further below, MSHA
Guidance for Use (ISO 45001:2018)); (2) industry
organizations (e.g., the National Mining
Association’s CORESafety and Health Management
System); and (3) government agencies (e.g., the
Department of Transportation, 49 CFR part 270).
The Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) also has developed
recommended practices for developing safety and
health programs (https://www.osha.gov/
shpguidelines/). 86 FR 50498.
E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM
20DER1
87906
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
provide compliance assistance where
necessary.
is adopting the proposed rule with
modifications. MSHA has addressed
comments more fully in the next
section, Section II, Section-by-Section
Analysis, of this preamble.
II. Section-by-Section Analysis
A. Sections 56.23000, 57.23000, and
77.2100—Purpose and Scope
Final §§ 56.23000, 57.23000, and
77.2100 address the purpose and scope
of the final rule. Like the proposal, final
§§ 56.23000, 57.23000, and 77.2100
state that the purpose of the safety
program is to reduce the accidents,
injuries, and fatalities related to the
operation of surface mobile equipment,
promote and support a positive safety
culture, and improve miners’ safety at
the mine. Unlike the proposal, all mine
operators are required to develop,
implement, and update a written safety
program for surface mobile equipment
used at surface mines and surface areas
of underground mines. The final rule is
changed from the proposal to cover
operators with five or fewer miners.
After reviewing comments and data, the
Agency determined that operators of
these mines need to develop a written
safety program to address surface
mobile equipment at their operations to
protect their miners. MSHA intends to
1. Mines Covered by the Proposal—
Mines Employing 6 or More Miners
In the proposal, §§ 56.23000,
57.23000, and 77.2100 would require
mine operators with six or more miners
to develop a written safety program. In
the proposed rule, MSHA also requested
comment on potentially requiring mines
with five or fewer miners to develop a
written safety program. Safety Program:
Surface Mobile Equipment, 86 FR
50,496, 50,500 (Sept. 9, 2021).
Commenters stated that all mine
operators, regardless of the number of
miners employed, should be required to
have a written safety program and that
miners at small operations need the
same protections as miners at larger
operations. Several commenters stated
that, regardless of whether a facility
employs one miner or one hundred
miners, each individual should be
protected equally. One commenter
stated that even though data may
indicate that serious accidents occur
less frequently at smaller operations, all
miners and operations should still be
covered because the hazards involving
surface mobile equipment pose a risk for
all miners. Several commenters stated
that applying the rule to all mines,
regardless of the number of miners
employed, will minimize confusion,
enhance safety practices, and increase
consistency across mines and
throughout MSHA enforcement. One
commenter stated that the Mine Act
does not set a threshold for how many
miners must be employed at a mine in
order for it to be subject to a standard,
and as such, operators with five or fewer
miners should not be excluded. Several
commenters supported MSHA’s goal to
minimize the burden on small
operations, but they did not believe that
a mobile equipment safety program will
present an undue economic burden on
operators with five or fewer miners if
MSHA provides clear guidance
regarding what is expected.
In response to comments, MSHA
reviewed recent data from 2011 to 2020
on fatalities and injuries and accident
investigation reports. Based on that
review, MSHA determined that the
fatality rate for mines with five or fewer
miners is greater than that for larger
mines. MSHA found that from 2011 to
2020, the average fatality rates (or fatal
incidence rate) per 200,000 working
hours were as follows: 0.0227 at mines
with 5 or fewer employees; 0.0167 at
mines with 6 to 20 employees; 0.0103 at
mines with 21 to 100 employees, and
0.0079 at mines with more than 100
employees. See Table II–1.
TABLE II–1—FATALITY RATES (OR FATAL INCIDENCE RATES), 2011–2020
Mine size (based on all mine employees)
5 or fewer
employees
Fatalities at Surface Mines and Surface Areas of Underground Mines (10-year
total) 1 .........................................................................................................................
Hours worked at Surface Mines and Surface Areas of Underground Mines (10-year
total in millions) 2 ........................................................................................................
Fatal Incidence Rate (or Fatality Rate) per 200,000 Working hours 3 ..........................
6 to 20
employees
21 to 100
employees
101 or more
employees
25
65
47
44
220.5
0.0227
776.9
0.0167
912.6
0.0103
1,110.6
0.0079
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
1 Includes fatalities of miners (including contract miners and office workers) that occurred at surface mines and at surface areas of underground mines.
2 Includes hours worked by miners (excluding contract miners) at surface mines and at surface areas of underground mines. Does not include
hours worked at facilities.
3 (Number of Fatalities × 200,000)/Hours Worked = Fatality Rate.
Note: Table excludes fatalities and work hours reported at facilities.
Based on the analysis and comments,
the final rule requires a written safety
program for all mines. MSHA agrees
with comments that the Mine Act
requires that miners’ safety and health
must be protected no matter how many
employees work at the mine. The
Agency concludes that applying the
final rule to all mines will provide
improved safety for all miners.
MSHA will provide compliance
assistance through the Agency’s EFSMS
staff to all mines. MSHA will also
encourage state grantees to focus on
providing training to address hazards
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Dec 19, 2023
Jkt 262001
and risks involving surface mobile
equipment in small mining operations.
In addition, MSHA will provide
assistance to small mine operators in the
form of additional training materials,
education, technical assistance, and
work with mining industry stakeholders
as it develops materials and templates to
assist mine operators. Also, MSHA is
implementing a 6-month delayed
compliance date from the effective date
to provide mine operators, especially
small mine operators, sufficient time to
identify and acquire, if necessary, the
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
needed resources to comply with this
final rule.
2. Belt Conveyors
The proposed rule did not include
belt conveyors in the definition of
surface mobile equipment. MSHA
received comments on whether to
include or exclude belt conveyors from
the definition of surface mobile
equipment and whether belt conveyors
should be covered under this rule. Some
commenters stated that belt conveyors
should be included in the scope of the
rule and that a written safety program
E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM
20DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
should be developed and implemented
to include them. One commenter
reviewed accident and injury data and
stated that many fatalities are associated
with belt conveyers. Several
commenters stated that technologies
and controls exist that can help prevent
accidents, for example: devices that can
sense a miner’s presence in hazardous
locations, properly installed machine
guards, and properly locked-out and
tagged-out machines undergoing
maintenance. According to these
commenters, MSHA should require a
written safety program for belt
conveyors just as it is requiring one for
mobile and powered haulage
equipment.
Several commenters agreed with
MSHA’s exclusion of belt conveyors
from the proposed rule. The
commenters stated that belt conveyors
should be addressed separately from
powered haulage vehicles because they
are very different types of equipment
and keeping them separate would
increase clarity.
Based on the comments, the final rule,
like the proposal, excludes belt
conveyors from the definition of surface
mobile equipment. Belt conveyors
present different safety hazards from
those associated with surface mobile
equipment. Belt conveyors range from a
single belt to a series of belts spanning
miles. All conveyor systems have
inherent dangers while in motion. Belt
conveyor accidents predominantly
involve entanglements in equipment
whereas accidents related to other
mobile equipment involve striking,
colliding, falling, or overtravel while the
equipment is in operation. MSHA
continues to believe that the safety
issues surrounding the operation of belt
conveyors can be better addressed
through existing standards (e.g., §§ 56/
57.14107 and 56/57.14112 for moving
machine parts and construction and
maintenance of guards), best practices,
and training. As MSHA does with many
other types of mining equipment, the
Agency provides training resources to
help operators and miners that include
best practices for working safely around
conveyor systems. These best practices
are available on the Agency’s website at
https://www.msha.gov.
3. Underground Areas of Underground
Mines
MSHA proposed to require a written
safety program for surface mobile
equipment at surface mines and surface
areas of underground mines. Several
commenters stated that all areas of
underground mines—meaning both
surface and underground areas of
underground mines—should be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Dec 19, 2023
Jkt 262001
included in the scope of the proposed
rule. Commenters stated that powered
haulage accidents happen in
underground areas of underground
mines, not just surface areas. This
observation, a commenter pointed out,
is based on MSHA accident data. One
commenter stated that underground
mining equipment should be expressly
excluded from the proposed rule even if
the equipment is operated on surface
areas.
Like the proposal, the final rule
applies to surface mobile equipment
used at surface mines as well as surface
areas of underground mines. Surface
mobile equipment being used in
underground mines and only brought to
the surface for maintenance or repair,
for example, is not included in the
scope of the final rule.
A large amount of surface mobile
equipment operates at many surface
mines and surface areas of underground
mines, which creates common hazards
such as striking, collision, and falling.
Surface mobile equipment tends to be
complex and large in size (compared to
mobile equipment used at underground
mines), which generates some unique
hazards, such as large blind spots for
equipment operators. The final rule
applies only to surface mobile
equipment.
As is the Agency’s practice, MSHA
will continue to work with operators
and miners in underground mines to
deliver training and best practice
materials to prevent accidents involving
mobile equipment in underground areas
and to provide safety protections for
miners at these mines.
B. Sections 56.23001, 57.23001, and
77.2101—Definitions
Final §§ 56.23001, 57.23001, and
77.2101 continue to define the terms
responsible person and surface mobile
equipment in the same way as defined
in the proposed rule.
MSHA proposed to define a
responsible person as a person with
authority and responsibility to evaluate
and update a written safety program for
surface mobile equipment. MSHA
believes that designating a person with
authority and responsibility to evaluate
and update the safety program as
necessary will help ensure the
successful development and
maintenance of a safety program that
addresses and reduces the likelihood of
surface mobile equipment hazards at a
particular mine. This individual should
be able to communicate the operator’s
commitment to safety and the
importance of miners’ involvement in
the program to prevent or mitigate
hazards. The responsible person must
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
87907
communicate the goals of the safety
program to all miners. The responsible
person will need to have the experience
and knowledge about mining
conditions, including surface mobile
equipment, necessary to evaluate and
update the written safety program.
MSHA received comments on this
definition. Commenters indicated a
preference for removing or redefining
the term. Some commenters stated that
the definition is redundant and should
be deleted, and that operators are
already required to designate a
responsible person for health and safety
purposes. Several commenters
discussed the similarities between the
responsibilities and liability burdens of
the mine operator, as compared to the
proposed definition of a responsible
person. One commenter stated that the
definition should be deleted as it serves
no purpose.
Other commenters brought up the
feasibility of assigning the duties to a
single individual. For example, one
commenter stated its view that the
proposed rule would require a person
that has the knowledge to identify
hazards on every piece of mobile
equipment, the authority to make highlevel financial decisions, and the
responsibility for any shortfalls in the
program. Still other commenters
questioned the consequences of
assigning the title of ‘‘responsible
person’’ to a single individual because
that individual could become
temporarily or permanently unavailable.
One commenter stated that MSHA
should amend this language to clearly
allow for multiple persons to be
designated as a responsible person. In
the commenter’s view, there are many
practical reasons to have additional
people in this position. For example, if
one designee is out sick, on vacation, or
leaves the company, there would still be
a designated responsible person on-site.
In response to the comments, the final
rule requires that each operator
designate at least one responsible
person to evaluate and update the
written safety program. Under the final
rule, the operator can designate one
person or multiple persons so long as
the designated persons have the
authority and responsibility to evaluate
and update the written safety program.
In addition, the final rule, like the
proposed rule, defines surface mobile
equipment as wheeled, skid-mounted,
track-mounted, or rail-mounted
equipment capable of moving or being
moved, and any powered equipment
that transports people, equipment, or
materials, excluding belt conveyors, at
surface mines and surface areas of
underground mines. This definition is
E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM
20DER1
87908
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
adapted from the current definition in
30 CFR 56.2 and 57.2 for metal and
nonmetal mines: mobile equipment
means ‘‘wheeled, skid-mounted, trackmounted, or rail-mounted equipment
capable of moving or being moved.’’
MSHA received comments on the
proposed definition of surface mobile
equipment. Several commenters
requested that MSHA clarify the type of
equipment that would meet the
proposed definition. One commenter
stated that equipment such as push
carts, welding carts, cylinder carts, and
basic hand trucks would be subject to
the proposed rule. The commenter
stated that the rationale to include this
type of equipment under the definition
is unclear. Another commenter stated
that certain skid-mounted equipment
such as light towers and substations
could be covered unintentionally.
Another commenter stated that it is
unclear whether small boats, portable
crushers, dredges, etc., are included.
Several commenters requested further
clarification from MSHA on the types of
equipment to be included in the
definition. Commenters requested that
MSHA provide a finite list of equipment
that would be included or exempted
from the rule. One commenter suggested
that MSHA create a supplementary,
clarifying guidance document.
After reviewing all the comments,
MSHA concludes that the definition in
this final rule is sufficiently clear about
what types of surface mobile equipment
are subject to a written safety program.
Surface mobile equipment excludes any
manually powered tools, such as
wheelbarrows, hand carts, push carts,
welding carts, cylinder carts, basic hand
trucks, or dollies for the purposes of this
written safety program. This definition
is consistent with the currently enforced
definition in 30 CFR parts 56 and 57.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
C. Sections 56.23002, 57.23002, and
77.2102—Written Safety Program
Final §§ 56.23002(a), 57.23002(a), and
77.2102(a), like the proposal, require
each mine operator to develop and
implement a written safety program no
later than 6 months after the effective
date of the final rule. Three issues raised
by commenters are discussed below.
1. Independent Contractors
Commenters stated that the proposed
rule is unclear as to whether or not
contractors are subject to the
requirements. Some commenters stated
that the proposed rule is silent on
whether it covers contractor equipment
and how such coverage would be
implemented in a practical sense, and
one commenter said that this silence
would lead to enforcement actions
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Dec 19, 2023
Jkt 262001
against the mine and/or contractors for
inconsistencies in how they would
comply with the proposed
requirements. Several commenters
stated that MSHA should clarify how
contractor programs should be
integrated with operators’ on-site safety
programs.
Commenters requested that MSHA
clarify that contractors are considered
operators, and thus would need to have
their own written safety program.
Several commenters stated that the
definition of ‘‘operator’’ in section 3(d)
of the Mine Act includes ‘‘any
independent contractor performing
services or construction’’ at a mine. 30
U.S.C. 802(d). Several commenters
stated that MSHA’s regulations at 30
CFR part 45, which sets forth procedural
requirements for independent
contractors working at mine sites, state
that such requirements exist ‘‘to
facilitate implementation of MSHA’s
enforcement policy of holding
independent contractors responsible for
violations committed by them and their
employees.’’
Several commenters stated that it
would be untenable to require
production operators to account for
contractor equipment in their own
safety programs. According to the
commenters, contractors often have
their own equipment and specialized
knowledge, so that it would be
impractical to require the operator to be
responsible for the contractors’
equipment.
MSHA’s intent in the proposed rule
was that an operator would mean ‘‘any
owner, lessee, or other person who
operates, controls, or supervises a coal
or other mine or any independent
contractor performing services or
construction at such mine’’ as stated in
section 3(d) of the Mine Act. To
facilitate implementation of MSHA’s
enforcement policy with respect to
certain independent contractors, MSHA
published regulations in 30 CFR part 45
related to the responsibility of
independent contractors that met the
requirements of part 45.
Consistent with MSHA’s part 45
regulations and the Agency’s
longstanding policy regarding
independent contractors, this final rule
requires operators, including contractors
with a part 45 identification number, to
develop and implement a written safety
program addressing surface mobile
equipment. MSHA has a long history
and practice of enforcing its standards
and regulations against operators and
independent contractors and believes
that the industry is familiar with and
understands this history and practice.
Under this final rule, MSHA will treat
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
operators and part 45 independent
contractors consistent with the
definition in the Mine Act and the
Agency’s longstanding history and
practice.
MSHA expects that a majority of the
Part 45 independent contractors will
develop and implement their own
written safety programs addressing their
surface mobile equipment and follow
the site-specific requirements, as
necessary, in the operators’ written
safety programs. In some situations,
operators may choose to integrate the
independent contractors’ written safety
programs into their programs. No matter
what approach is used, MSHA expects
that, in all cases, operators and
independent contractors will
communicate and coordinate with each
other, as appropriate, to ensure that
miners’ safety and health is protected.
Final §§ 56.23002(b), 57.23002(b), and
77.2102(b), similar to the proposal,
require each mine operator, within 6
months after the effective date of the
final rule, to designate at least one
responsible person to evaluate and
update the written safety program. As
discussed in the definition section, a
responsible person is a person with
authority and responsibility to evaluate
and update a written safety program for
surface mobile equipment.
2. Compliance Date
The final rule implements a 6-month
delayed compliance date from the
effective date. Commenters provided
varying suggestions on the proposed
effective date. Some commenters
suggested that all mine operators should
have an additional 6 to 12 months
without receiving citations relating to
this rule, for a total of up to 18 months
delayed effective date. Another
commenter suggested a longer time
period for only those mines that meet
the Small Business Administration’s
size standards; therefore, a 6-month
delay (as proposed) for larger entities
and up to an 18-month delay for smaller
entities. Some commenters agreed with
MSHA’s proposal that 6 months from
the effective date of the final rule is
sufficient time for operators to develop
a written safety program.
The final rule includes a delayed
compliance date to allow for
development and implementation of the
written safety program for surface
mobile equipment. After considering
comments and reviewing data on
accidents, injuries, and fatalities
involving surface mobile equipment,
MSHA determined that 6 months is a
reasonable timeframe for the
development and implementation of the
safety program for all mines, regardless
E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM
20DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
of size. MSHA believes that the 6-month
time frame gives operators sufficient
time to develop a meaningful written
safety program, with input from miners
and their representatives. MSHA has
offered and will continue to offer
materials and information that operators
can use in developing and
implementing a written safety program.
MSHA will also work with operators,
miners, and their representatives as well
as other stakeholders in the mining
industry (e.g., contractors) to develop
written safety program templates, as
well as best practices and guidance on
the development, implementation, and
evaluation of safety programs.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
3. Approval of the Written Safety
Program
The proposed rule did not require
MSHA approval of the operator’s
written safety program. Commenters
provided their views on whether MSHA
should require its approval of operators’
written safety programs. Several
commenters stated that MSHA’s
approval of the written safety program
is necessary, and that not requiring
MSHA approval would lead to
inconsistent enforcement by MSHA
inspectors. One commenter stated that
approval by MSHA should be required
because the written safety programs that
are developed without MSHA’s
oversight or approval would be, in the
commenter’s view, based on the
operator’s convenience, not the miners’
health and safety. One commenter
stated that MSHA approval of the
operator’s program is needed before it is
implemented to ensure the adequacy of
the individual, site-specific program
and to ensure that mine operators have
the opportunity to be alerted to any
possible deficiencies in their program
prior to MSHA approval. One
commenter stated that MSHA already
approves a number of written programs
and plans submitted by mine operators,
such as roof control plans, ground
control plans, and ventilation plans.
The commenter further stated that
without MSHA oversight, mine
operators will have generic programs
that will not be mine-specific or include
meaningful participation from miners
and their representatives.
Other commenters supported MSHA’s
proposal that required no Agency
approval of written safety programs.
One commenter stated that they
appreciate MSHA proposing to require a
written safety program without the
Agency’s approval, rather than with the
Agency’s approval. Another commenter
agreed that not requiring approval is a
wise decision because it would be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Dec 19, 2023
Jkt 262001
burdensome for MSHA to approve tens
of thousands of programs.
After considering all comments,
MSHA has determined that an
operator’s written safety program will be
appropriately reviewed by MSHA
during regular inspections. During the
inspection, MSHA will review the
written safety program to determine if it
reflects actions that identify and address
surface mobile equipment hazards at
mine sites and to verify whether input
from miners and their representatives
was sought. This approach will also
allow the Agency to ensure that the
written safety program addresses
hazards identified by mine operators
and miners. MSHA will also determine
whether the written safety program is
adequately evaluated and updated. In
light of the Agency’s inspection
presence, MSHA has determined that
Agency approval of the written safety
program is not needed.
D. Sections 56.23003, 57.23003, and
77.2103—Requirements for Written
Safety Program
Like the proposal, final
§§ 56.23003(a), 57.23003(a), and
77.2103(a) list general, performancebased requirements for the written
safety program. Under this final rule, an
operator’s safety program must include
four types of actions the operators will
take to reduce accidents, injuries, and
fatalities and to improve miners’ safety.
As discussed earlier, this and other
provisions in the final rule, unlike the
proposed rule, clarify the term
‘‘operator’’ or ‘‘operators,’’ to be
consistent with section 3(d) of the Mine
Act.
Several commenters stated that the
written safety program requirement is
redundant with provisions already
required in the CFR and does not
provide a new or strategic focus that
advances mobile equipment safety.
These commenters stated that there are
existing regulations in part 56 that
require mine operators to identify and
correct hazards in all work areas and for
all equipment, including surface mobile
equipment, such as § 56.18002 on the
examination of working places and
§ 56.14100 on safety defects;
examination; and correction of records.
One commenter stated that the
requirements of this section are
redundant with the training
requirements already set forth in part
46, and another commenter stated these
requirements are redundant with
training requirements already set forth
in part 48. One commenter requested
clarification on the specifics of the
documentation requirement for the
review and collection of this
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
87909
information. For example, what type of
information would meet the
requirement, how should it be
maintained, for how long would it need
to be kept, and how would MSHA
evaluate it for compliance? Another
commenter also requested additional
guidance on the types of safety hazards
that should be included. One
commenter asked how this requirement
could be enforced. Finally, one
commenter fully supported the
inclusion of this requirement.
After reviewing comments and
relevant information, MSHA believes
that structuring the final rule to include
a performance-based requirement to
identify and analyze hazards is more
appropriate than a prescriptive
requirement. The performance-based
approach in the final rule allows
operators the flexibility to devise and
tailor a safety program that is
appropriate for their specific and unique
mining conditions and operations.
These actions could include review of
accident data and information on near
misses and any operational or
maintenance accidents at their mines.
For example, under 30 CFR part 50,
mine operators are already required to
submit a report of each accident, injury,
and illness to MSHA within 10 working
days after an accident or occupational
injury occurs or an occupational illness
is diagnosed. Based on such information
and data, mine operators will be able to
develop a program that more
specifically addresses conditions at
their mines; mining equipment, work
locations, and tasks at their mine site;
and measures to eliminate, prevent, or
mitigate identified hazards. Regarding
the comment asking how this
information should be maintained and
for how long it would need to be kept,
further discussion of records and
inspection requirements is located
elsewhere in this preamble under
§§ 56.23004, 57.23004, and 77.2104.
1. Sections 56.23003(a)(1),
57.23003(a)(1), and 77.2103(a)(1)
Final §§ 56.23003(a)(1),
57.23003(a)(1), and 77.2103(a)(1), like
the proposal, require that the written
safety program include actions the
operator will take to identify and
analyze hazards and reduce the
resulting risks related to the movement
and operation of surface mobile
equipment. Operators are required to
identify and analyze hazards relevant to
surface mobile equipment and to take
actions to reduce the site-specific risks
so that their written safety programs can
be tailored to their unique mining
operations and conditions. Actions that
mine operators may take include
E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM
20DER1
87910
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
enhanced administrative controls such
as increased use of signage and
procedural changes to tasks that
remediate identified hazards. Other
actions may include visibility studies to
identify inherent blind spot areas
around mobile equipment and use of
visibility enhancing devices such as
flags and additional mirrors to minimize
these areas. Mine operators may choose
to change traffic patterns, implement
dispatchers for certain areas of a mine,
and limit or prohibit small vehicular or
foot traffic in identified high risk areas.
2. Sections 56.23003(a)(2),
57.23003(a)(2), and 77.2103(a)(2)
Final §§ 56.23003(a)(2),
57.23003(a)(2), and 77.2103(a)(2), like
the proposal, require that the written
safety program include actions the
operator will take to develop and
maintain procedures and schedules for
routine maintenance and non-routine
repairs for surface mobile equipment.
Commenters stated that this
requirement is redundant when
compared to existing part 56 and part 57
regulations. Likewise, another
commenter stated that § 77.404 already
addresses the requirements that mobile
and stationary machinery and
equipment be maintained in safe
operating conditions. Another
commenter stated that §§ 77.1600–
77.1607 includes extensive rules that
address loading and haulage, including
traffic controls, transportation of
persons, berms, inspection and
maintenance, and operation.
Another commenter expressed a
concern about the ambiguity of the
requirement, stating that inspectors may
be subjective and issue violations for
failure to follow manufacturers’
recommendations. Several commenters
stated that operators should have
additional flexibility when it comes to
manufacturers’ recommendations. In
these commenters’ view, manufacturers’
recommendations for maintenance and
repairs are often not reflective of how
the equipment is used at a given
operation. A commenter noted that
recommendations from the
manufacturer are a valuable resource for
equipment operators and maintenance
personnel, but often are designed to
avoid legal challenges rather than
maximize safe operation. One
commenter requested that this
requirement for maintenance and
repairs apply to the safe operation of the
equipment, rather than all maintenance
and repairs in general. Another
commenter stated that MSHA should
make clear that this section does not
require any new maintenance or repair
procedures, but requires only that the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Dec 19, 2023
Jkt 262001
facility’s procedures be reflected (or
referenced) in a written program.
Under the final rule, MSHA does not
intend for operators to develop new
maintenance and repair procedures,
unless operators do not have these in
place already. Operators may decide to
modify existing maintenance and repair
procedures based upon newly
conducted risk assessment findings. The
procedures and schedules for
maintenance and repairs for surface
mobile equipment developed for the
written safety program can reflect or
reference the operator’s existing
procedures and schedules.
3. Sections 56.23003(a)(3),
57.23003(a)(3), and 77.2103(a)(3)
Final §§ 56.23003(a)(3),
57.23003(a)(3), and 77.2103(a)(3), like
the proposed rule, require that the
written safety program include actions
the mine operator will take to identify
currently available and newly emerging
feasible technologies that can enhance
safety and evaluate whether to adopt
them. Examples of these technologies
could include seat belt interlocks that
affect equipment operation when a seat
belt is not fastened; seatbelt notification
systems that alert management when the
seatbelts are not worn; collision warning
systems and collision avoidance
systems that may prevent accidents by
alerting equipment operators to hazards
located in blind areas; technologies that
use Global Positioning Systems to
provide equipment operators with
information regarding their location
when pushing and dumping material; as
well as cameras, curvilinear mirrors,
and other vision enhancements (86 FR
50500).
Commenters stated that this
requirement is ambiguous, burdensome,
and redundant, and should be stricken
from the rule. Several commenters
stated that: the proposal does not appear
to require mine operators to implement
newly emerging technologies, and,
instead, it appears to require
evaluations. They further stated that
most mine operators likely already
evaluate newly emerging technologies to
save money and improve safety. Some
commenters were concerned that certain
terminology in the proposal is
subjective. For example, commenters
stated that MSHA needs to elaborate on
what types of actions operators should
take to ‘‘evaluate’’ how ‘‘newly
emerging feasible technologies’’ would
‘‘enhance’’ safety. Other commenters
stated that there are many areas of
concern related to testing and
implementing new technologies into
existing equipment, potentially creating
safety hazards. Another commenter
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
stated that new technologies often have
problems when they are initially
developed. For example, the commenter
noted that when airbags were first
released there were issues causing
injuries, and thus they had to be
redesigned. Another commenter stated
that MSHA should make clear that the
rule does not require the adoption of
any particular technology but is strictly
a requirement that the operator have a
procedure to identify and evaluate
potentially useful new technology.
After considering all comments, the
final rule is unchanged from the
proposal, and it requires that the
operator identify and evaluate currently
available and newly emerging feasible
technologies that can enhance safety at
the mines. MSHA’s intent is that
operators consider feasible technologies
that are capable of being used
successfully at that mine. MSHA
recognizes the safety benefits of new
and emerging technologies related to
surface mobile equipment. MSHA
believes that operators can typically
determine what types of new or existing
technologies that they need to enhance
safety at their operations. MSHA will
offer educational assistance on currently
available and newly emerging
technologies in a number of ways,
including through EFSMS, industry
stakeholders, quarterly stakeholder calls
and stakeholder meetings, safety and
health training workshops (e.g.,
Training Resources Applied to Mining
(TRAM) and Spring Thaw Training
Workshops), guidance documents, and
Agency website and mobile app
resources. Also, as part of the Agency’s
compliance assistance efforts, MSHA
will work with operators and provide
information and technical assistance
that will help them identify control
options and the use of new technologies
to prevent accidents and injuries.
MSHA will also encourage its state
grantees to focus on providing training
to address feasible technologies
involving surface mobile equipment in
mining operations.
4. Sections 56.23003(a)(4),
57.23003(a)(4), and 77.2103(a)(4)
Final §§ 56.23003(a)(4),
57.23003(a)(4), and 77.2103(a)(4), like
the proposal, require that the written
safety program include actions the
operator will take to train miners and
other persons at the mine necessary to
perform work to identify and address or
avoid hazards related to surface mobile
equipment.
Several commenters stated that they
already comply with part 46
requirements and that this section is
another example of regulatory
E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM
20DER1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
redundancy and does not provide a new
or strategic focus to advance mobile
equipment safety. One commenter
suggested that MSHA make clear that
the mobile equipment program can refer
to other sections of regulations relating
to mobile equipment and can
incorporate these by reference, for
example §§ 46.5(b)(2), 46.6(b)(2), and
46.8(c). Another commenter requested
that the Agency disambiguate the
language, ‘‘other persons at the mine
necessary to perform work,’’ by
providing more precise language.
Otherwise, for training purposes, the
language effectively would expand the
definition of ‘‘miner’’ to all employees.
After reviewing the comments, MSHA
clarifies that mine operators will only
need to integrate existing training
provisions, as applicable, into the
written safety program. The Agency
previously described the intended
audience for site-specific hazard
awareness training in the final rule for
Training and Retraining of Miners
Engaged in Shell Dredging or Employed
at Sand, Gravel, Surface Stone, Surface
Clay, Colloidal Phosphate, or Surface
Limestone Mines (64 FR 53080,
September 30, 1999). In that final rule,
MSHA required that ‘‘. . . hazard
awareness training be appropriate for
the individual who is receiving it and
that the breadth and depth of training
vary depending on the skills,
background, and job duties of the
recipient. For example, it may be
appropriate to provide hazard
awareness training to customer truck
drivers by handing out a card to the
drivers alerting them to the mine
hazards or directing them away from
certain areas of the mine site. More
extensive hazard awareness training
might be needed for an equipment
manufacturer’s representative who
comes onto mine property to service or
inspect a piece of mining equipment.
Although this individual may not be on
mine property for an extended period,
the person’s exposure to mine hazards
may warrant more training. Appropriate
hazard awareness training would
typically be more comprehensive for
contractor employees who fit the
definition of ‘miner’ because they are
engaged in mining operations. These
employees receive comprehensive
training but also need orientation to the
mine site and information on the mining
operations and mine hazards.’’ (64 FR
53128) Similarly, under this final rule,
the written safety program must include
the actions that the mine operator will
take to train miners and other persons
at the mine necessary to perform work
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Dec 19, 2023
Jkt 262001
to identify and address or avoid hazards
related to surface mobile equipment.
Under the final rule, mine operators
will need to integrate their existing
training procedures for miners and other
persons at the mine necessary to
perform work into their written safety
program to address and avoid hazards
related to surface mobile equipment.
5. Sections 56.23003(b), 57.23003(b),
and 77.2103(b)
Final §§ 56.23003(b), 57.23003(b), and
77.2103(b), similar to the proposal,
require the responsible person to
evaluate and update the written safety
program for the mine at least annually,
or as mining conditions or practices
change that may adversely affect the
health and safety of miners or other
persons, as accidents or injuries occur,
or as surface mobile equipment changes
or modifications are made. The final
rule is clarified in two ways. First, the
written program must be evaluated and
updated ‘‘at least’’ annually. This
clarification indicates that an annual
evaluation and update is the minimum,
and more frequent evaluations and
updates of the written safety program
must be done, if necessary. Second, the
final rule specifies that the evaluation
and update must be done when changes
in the mining conditions or practices
‘‘may adversely affect the health and
safety of miners or other persons.’’
MSHA acknowledges that not all
changes to mining conditions or
practices warrant updates to the written
safety program. This is similar to
MSHA’s existing requirements in §§ 56/
57.18002 that require for each working
place in metal and nonmetal (MNM)
mines an examination to be conducted
for conditions that may adversely affect
safety or health.
One commenter stated that requiring
the responsible person to evaluate and
update the written safety program is
redundant and already covered by part
56 requirements. Other commenters
recommended that the proposed
language regarding ‘‘surface mobile
equipment changes or modifications’’ be
removed. The commenters believe that
any significant changes in equipment
are covered under the provision of
‘‘mining practices’’ changing. In their
view, this deletion would capture the
large-scale changes the Agency intended
to cover without including small,
insignificant changes. These same
commenters also recommended
removing the term ‘‘injuries’’ from the
proposal because most powered haulage
injuries cannot meaningfully be
addressed in a safety program. The
commenters stated that, for example, an
equipment operator who slams a finger
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
87911
in the door of a pickup truck or pulls
a muscle climbing on or off a loader has
sustained a powered haulage injury, but
they are not the types of injuries that
warrant re-evaluation of the program.
The commenters stated that
‘‘accidents,’’ however, should be
retained and that yearly is a reasonable
timeframe to reevaluate the program.
Other commenters suggested that MSHA
revise the requirement to read:
‘‘evaluate and update the written safety
program at least annually or whenever
necessary to manage safety risks
associated with their surface mobile
equipment appropriately.’’
Except the clarifications described
earlier, this requirement is the same as
the proposal. As explained in the
previous section, MSHA believes that
given the type of authority and
responsibility, it is a responsible person
who must evaluate and update the
written safety program. In addition, as
stated in the proposal, best practices
shown by NIOSH, OSHA, and other
safety standards organizations include
ongoing evaluations of workplace
activities and processes to address
safety proactively and to find and fix
hazards before injuries and fatalities
happen. Moreover, in response to some
commenters recommending that the
term injuries be removed from the
requirements, MSHA believes that the
term is still needed because injuries are
an indicator of hazards at mines that
could result in further injuries and
fatalities. The final rule also clarifies
that the written safety program must be
evaluated and updated when mining
conditions and practices change that
may adversely affect the health and
safety of miners.
6. Sections 56.23003(c), 57.23003(c),
and 77.2103(c)
Final §§ 56.23003(c), 57.23003(c), and
77.2103(c) is a provision that requires
operators to consult with miners and
their representatives in developing and
updating the safety program. These
requirements are consistent with
existing obligations to consult with
miners and representatives and MSHA’s
long-standing recognition that such
consultation is vital for ensuring the
efficacy of safety programs. Under
existing requirements, operators already
must (in many cases) provide miners
and miners’ representatives the
opportunity to comment on or otherwise
participate in these existing processes.
See, e.g., 30 CFR 46.3(g), 48.23(d) and
(j)(1), and 56/57.18002. As these
existing processes are expected to be
referenced in developing and updating
the safety program, miners and their
representatives similarly should be
E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM
20DER1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
87912
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
consulted in developing and updating
the program. In drafting the proposal,
MSHA intended that operators would
seek input from miners and their
representatives in the development and
updating of a meaningful safety
program, given their existing
involvement with most of the
component parts of the program. The
proposal also provided that the
responsible person ‘‘should be able to
communicate the operator’s
commitment to safety and the
importance of miners’ involvement in
the program to prevent or mitigate
hazards.’’ 86 FR 50500. In addition,
commenters requested that miners and
their representatives participate in the
development of the written safety
program. MSHA includes this provision
in the final rule to recognize the
comments and to be consistent with the
Agency’s intent in the proposal and
with the Mine Act. In drafting the
proposal, consistent with the Agency’s
long-standing practice and section 2(e)
of the Mine Act, MSHA intended that
miners would be involved in the
development and updating of the
program, although it was not discussed
in the preamble.
The Mine Act provides miners and
their representatives a right to
participate in various safety and health
activities. Some examples are as
follows. Section 2(e) provides that ‘‘the
operators of [coal or other] mines with
the assistance of the miners have the
primary responsibility to prevent the
existence of [unsafe and unhealthy]
conditions and practices in such
mines.’’ Section 101(c) provides that the
representative of miners may petition
the Secretary (of Labor) to ‘‘modify the
application of any mandatory safety
standard to a coal or other mine if the
Secretary determines that 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 . . .’’
Section 103(f) provides that miners’
representatives ‘‘be given an
opportunity to accompany the Secretary
or authorized representative during the
physical inspection of any coal or other
mine . . .’’ Section 103(g)(1) provides a
representative of miners or a miner in
case there is no representative the ‘‘right
to obtain an immediate inspection by
giving notice to the Secretary or
authorized representative’’ that a
violation of the Mine Act or its
standards, or an imminent danger exists.
Section 105(c) provides miners and
their representatives the right to file a
discrimination complaint with MSHA if
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Dec 19, 2023
Jkt 262001
they believe they have been discharged,
discriminated against, or interfered with
for complaining of ‘‘an alleged danger or
safety or health violation in a coal or
other mine’’. Further, as stated by the
Senate Committee on Human Resources
in keeping with a purpose of the Mine
Act: ‘‘If our national mine safety and
health program is to be truly effective,
miners will have to play an active part
in the enforcement of the Act.’’ S. Rep.
No. 95–181, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. at 35
(1977).
Based on MSHA’s experience and
past practice, and consistent with the
statutory intent of the Mine Act, miners
and their representatives are involved in
many aspects of MSHA’s enforcement
program and standards. MSHA is
persuaded by commenters who stated
that for safety programs to be successful,
there must be active and meaningful
participation from miners. The final rule
makes explicit that miners provide
input in developing and updating the
written safety program.
E. Sections 56.23004, 57.23004, and
77.2104—Record and Inspection
Final §§ 56.23004, 57.23004, and
77.2104 is clarified from the proposed
provision. Like the proposal, the final
rule requires that the operator make
available a copy of the written safety
program for inspection by authorized
representatives of the Secretary, miners,
and their representatives. In response to
comments and consistent with the Mine
Act that the operator, with the
assistance of miners, is primarily
responsible for safety and health, the
final rule clarifies that miners and their
representatives will receive, upon
request, a copy of the written safety
program at no cost.
Several commenters requested that
MSHA provide further clarity on the
acceptable formats for delivery of the
written safety program. One commenter
stated that the proposed rule needs to
clarify that the written safety program is
to be provided at no cost to miners and
their representatives. Another
commenter stated that this section
should indicate that the written program
can be maintained and provided
electronically.
The final rule allows operators the
flexibility to create the written safety
program in any electronic or hard copy
format, as long as the written safety
program includes the information
required by the final rule and can be
made available for inspection by the
Secretary, miners, and their
representatives. Consistent with the
Agency’s longstanding policy, an
operator must provide notice to miners
by providing an electronic or hard copy
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
of the written safety program to miners
and their representatives, at no cost,
upon request.
III. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review), Executive Order
14094 (Modernizing Regulatory
Review), and Executive Order 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review)
Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
(as amended by E.O. 14094), the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB)’s
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) determines whether a
regulatory action is significant and,
therefore, subject to the requirements of
the E.O. and review by OMB. 58 FR
51735, 51741 (1993). As amended by
E.O. 14094, section 3(f) of E.O. 12866
defines a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
as a regulatory action that is likely to
result in a rule that may: (1) have an
annual effect on the economy of $200
million or more; or adversely affect in
a material way the economy, a sector of
the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or state, local, territorial, or tribal
governments or communities; (2) create
a serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfere with an action taken or
planned by another agency; (3)
materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or (4) raise legal or
policy issues for which centralized
review would meaningfully further the
President’s priorities or the principles
set forth in the E.O. OIRA has
determined that this rule is significant
under E.O. 12866, and accordingly it
has been reviewed by OMB.
E.O. 13563 directs agencies to propose
or adopt a regulation only upon a
reasoned determination that its benefits
justify its costs; the regulation is tailored
to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with achieving the regulatory
objectives; and in choosing among
alternative regulatory approaches, the
agency has selected those approaches
that maximize net benefits. 76 FR 3821
(2011). E.O. 13563 recognizes that some
benefits are difficult to quantify and
provides that, where appropriate and
permitted by law, agencies may
consider and discuss qualitative values
that are difficult or impossible to
quantify, including equity, human
dignity, fairness, and distributive
impacts.
MSHA presents the costs and benefits
associated with the final rule. MSHA
estimated the costs associated with the
final rule’s requirements by adding the
estimated costs of the following. First,
the estimated costs include developing
E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM
20DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
the written safety program document,
including the actions the operators will
take to follow better safety procedures
and practices, by identifying and
analyzing hazards, evaluating currently
available and emerging technologies,
developing and maintaining
maintenance and repair schedules and
procedures, and training miners and
others to identify and address hazards,
and including miners in developing and
updating the program. Operators must
also provide copies of the written safety
program to miners and their
representatives upon request. MSHA
anticipates that the listing of actions
operators will take will enhance existing
compliance and improve safety
regarding several of the existing
requirements (such as training,
maintenance and repair, workplace
exams) that the program must describe.
Second, the estimated costs include
87913
the estimated annualized net benefit is
$48.2 million (annualized benefits of
$61.3 million and annualized costs of
$13.0 million). Supporting materials
and data that provide additional details
on the methodology used to estimate the
costs, benefits, and other required
analyses of this rule are included in the
standalone Final Regulatory Impact
Analysis (FRIA), which has been placed
in the rule docket (RIN 1219–AB91,
Docket ID No. MSHA–2018–0016) at
https://www.regulations.gov and is
posted on MSHA’s website at https://
www.msha.gov.
updating the written safety program at
least annually and under certain
circumstances, such as when new
equipment is brought to the mine or
when accidents or changes in mining
conditions or practices occur that may
adversely affect the safety and health of
miners, and providing copies of the
written safety program to miners and
their representatives upon request. The
first component is a one-time, initial
compliance costs in the first year,
whereas the second component
represents the recurring compliance
costs for subsequent years.
This section provides a summary of
MSHA’s cost and benefit estimates of
the final rule. This final rule is
estimated to have a 10-year total net
benefit of $411 million at a 3 percent
discount rate, based on estimated 10year total benefits of $522 million and
estimated 10-year total costs of $111
million. At the 3 percent discount rate,
A. Mining Industry Profile
A total of 12,434 mines in the U.S.
reported their working hours in 2021.
Over 301,000 workers worked at those
mines. Table III–1 shows which types of
mines the miners and other workers
worked.
TABLE III–1—MINES AND EMPLOYMENT BY SURFACE OR UNDERGROUND LOCATION IN 2021
Total
contract
workers 2
Total
workers 3
60,120
7,047
....................
....................
....................
....................
170,558
67,167
69,433
239,991
18,294
21,323
19,200
21,916
11,887
7,664
....................
....................
....................
....................
963
39,617
41,116
19,551
20,288
61,404
Surface Including Facilities ........................
Underground ..............................................
11,986
448
146,450
39,546
169,046
42,628
72,007
14,711
....................
....................
....................
....................
Total ....................................................
12,434
185,996
211,674
86,718
89,721
301,395
Mines 1
Location
MNM ........................
Surface Including Facilities ........................
Underground ..............................................
11,236
235
128,156
18,223
149,846
20,712
Total ....................................................
11,471
146,379
Surface Including Facilities ........................
Underground ..............................................
750
213
Total ....................................................
Coal .........................
All Mines ..................
Miners
Total
mine
workers 2
Commodity
Contract
miners
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Source: MSHA MSIS Data (reported on MSHA Form 7000–2), Accessed on April 7, 2022.
Notes: All Miners and workers are calculated using employers’ headcount reports; some miners and workers may be counted more than once,
as they work at more than one mine.
1 Of the 12,434 mines, 40 did not have any employment in surface areas; they were thus excluded from the analysis.
2 Total mine workers and total contract workers include both miners and office/administrative workers.
3 Total workers include total mine workers and total contract workers.
This final rule applies to all operators
of surface mines and underground
mines with surface areas, including
independent contractors working at
those mines. As shown, there were
11,986 surface mines and 448
underground mines. Most underground
mines have surface areas where miners
work. Of all the mines, about 92 percent
were metal and nonmetal mines and the
rest were coal mines.
B. Costs
Under the final rule, operators are
required to develop, implement, and
update at least annually and when
necessary, a written safety program for
surface mobile equipment used at their
mines. As defined in this rule, surface
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Dec 19, 2023
Jkt 262001
mobile equipment refers to wheeled,
skid-mounted, track-mounted, or railmounted equipment capable of moving
or being moved, and any powered
equipment that transports people,
equipment, or materials, excluding belt
conveyors, at surface mines and surface
work areas of underground mines.
The required written safety program
for surface mobile equipment must
include the actions that operators will
take to identify and analyze hazards and
reduce the resulting risks related to
equipment movement and operation. It
must also include actions to develop
and maintain procedures and schedules
for routine maintenance and nonroutine repairs. Operators are also
required to describe the actions they
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
will take to identify currently available
and newly emerging feasible
technologies that can enhance safety
and evaluate whether to adopt them.
Finally, the rule requires operators to
describe the actions they will take to
train miners and other persons at the
mine necessary to perform work to
identify and address or avoid hazards
related to surface mobile equipment.
Once the written safety program is
developed and implemented, a
responsible person is required to
evaluate and update it for the mine at
least annually, or when mining
conditions or practices change that may
adversely affect the health and safety of
miners or other persons, when accidents
or injuries occur, or when surface
E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM
20DER1
87914
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
mobile equipment changes or
modifications are made. While the final
rule provides operators flexibility to
devise a safety program that is
appropriate for their specific mining
conditions and operations, the final rule
also requires operators to solicit input
from miners and their representatives as
they develop and update the written
safety program.
MSHA estimated the costs associated
with the final rule’s requirements by
adding the estimated costs of the
following. First, the estimated costs
include developing the written safety
program document, including the
actions the operators will take to
identify and analyze hazards, evaluate
current and emerging technologies,
develop and maintain the maintenance
and repair schedules and procedures,
train miners and others to identify and
address hazards associated with surface
mobile equipment. Operators must also
provide copies of the written safety
program to miners and their
representatives upon request. Second,
the estimated costs include updating the
written safety program at least annually
and under certain circumstances, such
as when new equipment is brought to
the mine or when accidents or changes
in mining conditions or practices occur
that may adversely affect the safety and
health of miners, and, for each update,
providing copies of the written safety
program to miners and their
representatives upon request. The first
component is considered to be the onetime, initial compliance costs in the first
year, whereas the second component
represents the recurring compliance
costs for subsequent years. Estimated
costs also include providing copies of
the written safety program to miners
and their representatives upon request.
MSHA calculated these compliance
costs based on the estimated time spent
by mine employees to develop and
update the written safety program,
multiplied by their wage rates. MSHA
assumed that mine supervisors, safety
professionals, and maintenance workers
would participate in the creation and
updates of the written safety program.
MSHA assumed that operators will
solicit input from miners and their
representatives in developing and
maintaining all aspects of the written
safety program, and MSHA included the
time for their collaboration in its cost
estimates.
MSHA further assumed that the time
needed to develop and update the
written safety program would vary by
the number of unique surface mobile
equipment units at each mine, which
would be related to a mine’s production
output (e.g., tonnage), and employment
size.8 Based on these factors, MSHA
grouped all MNM and coal mines into
three categories each and estimated the
compliance costs for this final rule by
category.9 MSHA also assumed a
majority of independent contractors (75
percent or 4,739) would develop and
update a written safety program for
surface mobile equipment at mines.10
The total compliance cost estimates
are shown in Table III–2. The
compliance costs for the 10-year period
of analysis (i.e., 10-year implementation
period) are estimated to be about $126
million (in 2021 dollars) undiscounted,
while the 10-year compliance costs
discounted at 3 percent and 7 percent
are about $111 million and $95 million,
respectively. The annualized costs
discounted at 3 and 7 percent are $13.0
million and $13.5 million, respectively.
TABLE III–2—YEARLY COMPLIANCE COST ESTIMATES
[Millions of 2021 dollars]
Total compliance costs
Implementation year
Discounted at
0%
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year
3%
7%
1 ..........................................................................................................................................
2 ..........................................................................................................................................
3 ..........................................................................................................................................
4 ..........................................................................................................................................
5 ..........................................................................................................................................
6 ..........................................................................................................................................
7 ..........................................................................................................................................
8 ..........................................................................................................................................
9 ..........................................................................................................................................
10 ........................................................................................................................................
$37.0
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
$36.0
9.4
9.1
8.8
8.6
8.3
8.1
7.8
7.6
7.4
$34.6
8.7
8.1
7.6
7.1
6.6
6.2
5.8
5.4
5.0
10-Year Total ........................................................................................................................
Annualized ............................................................................................................................
126.4
12.6
111.0
13.0
95.1
13.5
Note: Totals may not equal the sum of the components due to rounding.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
C. Benefits
This final rule is expected to generate
numerous benefits, including reductions
in individual injuries and fatalities,
fostering of a positive safety culture at
the mine, reductions in worker
compensation and other insurance
premiums, and decreases in down-time
8 MSHA used metric tons for the production
output as based on the cost estimation chapter of
the Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration
Handbook. Stebbins, S.A., and Leinart, J.B. 2011.
Cost estimating for surface mines. In SME Mining
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Dec 19, 2023
Jkt 262001
(non-production time) due to accidents.
Among these benefits, MSHA focused
on estimating the number of surface
mobile equipment-related fatalities and
injuries that could be prevented due to
this final rule and the monetized
benefits of those fatalities and injuries
prevented. MSHA also performed a
sensitivity analysis covering different
scenarios that would lead to different
percentages of fatalities and injuries
prevented, and thus to different levels of
benefits depending on the assumptions
made.
Since the final rule includes all
mines, MSHA modified the approach
Engineering Handbook, 3rd ed. Edited by P.
Darling.
9 See Appendix A of the Final Regulatory Impact
Analysis for this final rule for a detailed
explanation.
10 Based on its examination of the mining
contractors listed in 2021, MSHA estimated that
approximately 75 percent of 6,318 part 45
independent contractors would be required under
the final rule to develop a safety program because
they have surface mobile equipment.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM
20DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
from the proposed rule and used the
following analysis to estimate the
monetized benefits of fatalities and
injuries prevented. MSHA first
established a baseline using the fatality
and injury data and post-accident
investigation reports from the 2011–
2020 period. In the proposed rule,
MSHA used data for accidents,
fatalities, and injuries from the years
2003 to 2018 for mines that employed
six or more miners. For the final rule,
however, MSHA is using more recent
and comprehensive data and detailed
information concerning accidents,
fatalities, and injuries that occurred
between 2011 and 2020 for all mines.
The Agency believes the more recent
data better reflects current and future
circumstances.
To estimate the monetized benefits of
fatalities and injuries prevented, MSHA
first examined historical fatality and
injury data and post-accident
investigation reports from the 2011–
2020 period. MSHA found that over that
10-year period, there were 113 surface
mobile equipment fatalities. MSHA
further observed that in the case of 63
(about 56 percent) of the 113 fatalities
involving surface mobile equipment,
deficiencies in training, hazard
identification, or maintenance or any
combination of these three factors
contributed to the fatality. MSHA also
counted 13,753 non-fatal injuries
involving surface mobile equipment and
454,076 workdays lost due to those
injuries during the 10-year period.
Based on this historical analysis,
MSHA projected the numbers of surface
mobile equipment fatalities, non-fatal
injuries, and lost workdays that would
be expected due to deficiencies in
training, hazard identification, or
maintenance, in the absence of the final
rule. MSHA then compared those
projected numbers (‘‘baseline’’) with the
projections of the same types of
fatalities, non-fatal injuries, and
workdays lost, in the presence of the
final rule. The difference between the
two was used as the basis for calculating
benefits of the final rule. MSHA believes
that a safety program that identifies
actions operators will take to
accomplish the required tasks will
reduce fatalities, non-fatal injuries, and
lost workdays that would be expected
due to deficiencies in training, hazard
87915
identification, or maintenance because
it will increase compliance with
MSHA’s existing hazard identification,
hazard correction, maintenance, and
training requirements.
MSHA projected that in the absence
of the final rule, over the next 10 years,
there would be 60 fatalities, 7,298
injuries, and 240,954 workdays lost
annually due to deficiencies in training,
hazard identification, or maintenance
related to surface mobile equipment.
These projections assume a mining
workforce of approximately 253,401
(each working 2,000 hours in a year)
each year. MSHA estimated that the
final rule would reduce the projected
fatalities, injuries, and workdays lost
resulting from deficiencies in training,
hazard identification, or maintenance by
about 75 percent for each year the rule
is in effect, beginning in the second
year.11 MSHA then performed a
sensitivity analysis with two additional
scenarios—a 50 percent reduction and a
25 percent reduction. Table III–3 and
Table III–4 present summaries of these
results.
TABLE III–3—PROJECTED SURFACE MOBILE EQUIPMENT FATALITIES IN THE ABSENCE OF AND WITH THE FINAL RULE
In the absence of
final rule
With final rule
Fatalities prevented—projections
Projected surface
mobile equipment
fatalities due to
deficiencies in
training, hazard
identification, or
maintenance
Implementation year
Program
effectiveness at
75%
(expected
scenario)
Program
effectiveness
at 50%
Program
effectiveness
at 25%
Baseline
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year
1 * ......................................................................................
2 ........................................................................................
3 ........................................................................................
4 ........................................................................................
5 ........................................................................................
6 ........................................................................................
7 ........................................................................................
8 ........................................................................................
9 ........................................................................................
10 ......................................................................................
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
2.2
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
1.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
0.7
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
10-Year Total ......................................................................
60.0
42.7
28.5
14.2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Note: Totals may not equal the sum of the components due to rounding.
* Due to delayed compliance in the first year of implementation, MSHA assumes that there will be fewer fatalities prevented in the first year
than in each subsequent year. For example, under the expected scenario, MSHA estimates that 4.5 lives will be saved in a full year after implementation, but given the 6-month delayed compliance date, a half of 2.2 lives is assumed to be saved in the first year.
11 In the first year—because the rule will be
effective for only half the year—there would be a
37.5 percent, rather than a 75 percent, reduction.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Dec 19, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM
20DER1
87916
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE III–4—PROJECTED SURFACE MOBILE EQUIPMENT INJURIES IN THE ABSENCE OF AND WITH THE FINAL RULE
In the absence of
final rule
With final rule
Injuries prevented—projections
Projected surface
mobile equipment
injuries due to
deficiencies in
training, hazard
identification, or
maintenance
Implementation year
Program
effectiveness
at 75%
(expected
scenario)
Program
effectiveness
at 50%
Program
effectiveness
at 25%
Baseline
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year
1 * ......................................................................................
2 ........................................................................................
3 ........................................................................................
4 ........................................................................................
5 ........................................................................................
6 ........................................................................................
7 ........................................................................................
8 ........................................................................................
9 ........................................................................................
10 ......................................................................................
730
730
730
730
730
730
730
730
730
730
273.7
547.4
547.4
547.4
547.4
547.4
547.4
547.4
547.4
547.4
182.5
364.9
364.9
364.9
364.9
364.9
364.9
364.9
364.9
364.9
91.2
182.5
182.5
182.5
182.5
182.5
182.5
182.5
182.5
182.5
10-Year Total ......................................................................
7,298
5,200
3,467
1,733
Notes: Totals may not equal the sum of the components due to rounding.
* Due to delayed compliance in the first year of implementation, MSHA assumes that there will be fewer injuries prevented in the first year than
in each subsequent year.
The monetary value of the reduction
in fatalities and injuries related to
surface mobile equipment is calculated
as follows. First, to develop a monetized
benefit estimate of fatality reduction,
MSHA used the Value of a Statistical
Life (VSL) adopted by other Federal
agencies like the Department of
Transportation and Department of
Homeland Security, and adjusted for the
real per-capita Gross Domestic Product
(GDP). Second, to estimate the
monetized benefit of injury reduction,
MSHA used the projected reduction in
the number of workdays lost due to
injuries, multiplied by the average wage
of miners. The monetized benefits of
reduced injuries were then calculated
by multiplying the total workdays lost
due to the injuries and the average wage
of miners. Again, MSHA performed a
sensitivity analysis with two additional
scenarios—a 25 percent reduction and a
50 percent reduction in fatalities and
injuries. In the expected scenario, the
10-year monetized benefit totals, in
2021 dollars, are calculated at $522
million at a 3 percent discount rate and
$424 million at a 7 percent discount
rate.
D. Net Benefits
Table III–5 presents the monetized net
benefits for the first 10 years of
implementation of the final rule. The
10-year net benefit totals in 2021 dollars
are $411 million at a 3 percent discount
rate and $329 million at a 7 percent
discount rate. An annualized net benefit
is estimated at $48.2 million and $46.8
million, respectively, at 3 percent and 7
percent discount rates.
TABLE III–5—MONETIZED NET BENEFITS
[Millions of 2021 dollars]
0%
10-Year total * .............................
Annualized ..................................
Expected
scenario
Low net benefit
scenario
Lowest net benefit
scenario
Discounted at
Discounted at
Discounted at
3%
$493
49.3
$411
48.2
7%
$329
46.8
0%
$286
28.6
3%
$237
27.8
7%
0%
$187
26.7
$80
8.0
3%
$63
7.4
7%
$46
6.6
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Note: Totals may not equal the sum of the components due to rounding.
* MSHA assumed that a full-year worth costs would be incurred, while projecting a half of the full-year monetized benefits in the first year, due
to the timing of implementation (6-month delayed compliance).
MSHA believes that the net-benefits
of the rule are understandable, because
the costs of the safety program are
modest relative to the much-higher
value of the estimated reduction in
fatalities.
IV. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(RFA) and Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)
and Executive Order 13272: Proper
Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking
MSHA has reviewed the final rule to
assess and take appropriate account of
its potential impact on small businesses,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Dec 19, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
small governmental jurisdictions, and
small organizations. Pursuant to the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of
1980, as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA), MSHA analyzed the impact
of the final rule on small entities. Based
on that analysis, MSHA certifies that
this final rule does not have a
E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM
20DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The factual basis for this certification is
presented in this section.
A. Definition of Small
Under the RFA, when analyzing the
impact of a rule on small entities,
MSHA must use the Small Business
Administration’s (SBA) definition for a
small entity or, after consultation with
the SBA Office of Advocacy, establish
an alternative definition for the mining
industry by publishing that definition in
the Federal Register for notice and
comment. The SBA uses North
American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) codes, generally at the
6-digit NAICS level, to set thresholds for
small business sizes for each industry.12
B. Factual Basis for Certification
Following SBA guidance on carrying
out a threshold analysis, MSHA
evaluates the impacts on small entities
by comparing the estimated compliance
costs of a rule for small entities in the
sector affected by the rule to the
estimated revenues for the affected
sector. When estimated compliance
costs are less than 1 percent of the
estimated industry revenues, it is
generally appropriate to conclude that
there is no significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. In addition to assessing the
overall impact on small entities, MSHA
examines data for the NAICS codes that
have much higher impact ratios (cost/
revenue) than others to ensure that the
first-level screening is representative.
As the first step, MSHA identified all
small-entity controllers in the mining
industry on the basis of the small-entity
thresholds. The MNM and coal mining
operations affected by the rule fall into
two general categories: (1) controllers
(parent companies) that own and
operate mines, which is the appropriate
unit for this RFA analysis (based on
SBA guidance),13 and (2) mining
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
12 Small Business Administration, Table of Size
Standards: Effective July 14, 2022. https://
www.sba.gov/document/support-table-sizestandards.
13 A controller is a parent company owning or
controlling one or more mines, whereas a mine is
an establishment of that parent company. Small
entities, subject to requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, are entities that are parent
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Dec 19, 2023
Jkt 262001
contractors (independent contractors
designated under part 45 of 30 CFR),
hired by mine operators to work at
mines, that operate their own surface
mobile equipment. MSHA identified
and analyzed the effect of the rule on
small-entity controllers of mines and on
small-entity mining contractors.
To determine the number of small
entities subject to the final rule, MSHA
reviewed NAICS, the standard used by
Federal statistical agencies in classifying
business establishments, as well as
information from the SBA Office of
Advocacy. MSHA used its data from the
MSHA Standardized Information
System (MSIS) to identify the
responsible party for each mine, as well
as the contractors hired to do work on
mines. MSHA then combined that
information with the size classification
information. The two sections below
describe MSHA’s analysis of controllers
and mining contractors, respectively.
Small-entity controllers: In analyzing
controllers of mines, MSHA determined
that mining operations that fall into 19
NAICS-based industry classifications
may be subject to the final rule. These
industry categories and their
accompanying six-digit NAICS codes
are shown in Table IV–1.14 MSHA then
companies only and not establishments. See Small
Business Administration, Office of Advocacy, How
to Comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
August 2017. Sec. 3(d) of the Mine Act defines
‘‘operator’’ as ‘‘any owner, lessee, or other person
who operates, controls, or supervises a coal or other
mine.’’ 30 U.S.C. 802(d). Under 30 CFR part 41, an
operator must file a legal identity report with
MSHA and with this report, MSHA identifies a
controller for each mine. 30 U.S.C. 819(d) (each
operator shall file the name and address of the
‘‘person who controls or operates the mine.’’). In the
IRFA, MSHA considered the controller of a mine
and then determined whether the mine, not the
controller, was a small entity. In the FRFA,
consistent with the SBA guidance and the Mine
Act, MSHA determines whether a controller is a
small entity.
14 The NAICS classifications used in this analysis
are drawn from the latest version of the NAICS,
which was effective in July 2022. MSHA also used,
in the analysis, an earlier the version of NAICS
categories that were effective in August 2019. When
developing the analysis, MSHA had begun the work
prior to the most current NAICS being effective. The
older NAICS categories were still used in the part
of the current analysis that estimated revenues. This
is because the older categories were still needed in
order for MSHA to cross-tabulate (or crosswalk) its
data on mines and controllers with Bureau of
Census data on revenues by NAICS codes, where
these Census data were organized by the same
NAICS codes that were in the earlier version. No
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
87917
matched the NAICS classifications with
SBA small-entity size standards (based
on number of employees) to determine
the number of small entities within each
of the respective NAICS codes. See
Table IV–1.
MSHA counted the number of smallentity controllers in each NAICS code,
after determining which mines were
owned by which controllers. Table IV–
1 shows the count of all controllers and
a count of small-entity controllers in
each NAICS code.15
Based on this methodology, MSHA
estimated that in 2021, there were a
total of 5,879 controllers, and 5,462 of
them were small-entity controllers.
Many controllers owned one or two
mines, while some controllers owned
hundreds of mines nationwide (or
worldwide).16
comparable revenue data, at this writing, had yet
been revised to the most recent NAICS categories.
15 Some controllers own mines with more than
one NAICS code if those mines produce different
commodities. For this analysis, however, MSHA
counted each ‘‘unique’’ controller only once. In
other words, there is no double-counting of the
same controller if a controller produces in more
than one NAICS code. It is not uncommon for firms
to produce different products falling under more
than one six-digit NAICS codes, especially if the
firm is large. In any case, no single NAICS code is
attributed to any controller that has more than one
NAICS code. Rather, the analysis takes all of any
one controller’s multiple NAICS codes into account
without losing any of the information about the
NAICS codes. Specifically, that one controller’s
revenues and employees are partitioned among
each of that one controller’s production by NAICS
code, and then aggregated for that one controller.
16 The number of controllers and mines examined
in this regulatory flexibility analysis are those
specifically known to operate in 2021. The year
2021 is the most current year for which complete
information were available. Such information about
controllers as parent companies might include, for
example, knowledge of whether the parent
company is a large, multinational corporation,
which has bearing on this regulatory flexibility
analysis. Because the benefit-cost analysis
performed on the proposed rule did not need this
kind of detailed information about controllers, it
was able to have a broader scope to include data
from other years besides 2021, and to include some
more data in the year 2021 itself, which it did. As
a result, the benefit cost analysis included a larger
number of mines (and affected mines) and
controllers. The key factor for this regulatory
flexibility analysis is the estimated ratio of the
regulatory cost per revenue for controllers, as
reflected by the most current data. The estimation
of this ratio is robustly addressed in MSHA’s
analysis of the 5,879 controllers in 2021 (which is
not impacted by the exclusion of other years in this
analysis).
E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM
20DER1
87918
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE IV–1—SMALL ENTITIES AFFECTED BY THE FINAL RULE: NUMBER OF CONTROLLERS AND SMALL-ENTITY
CONTROLLERS BY NAICS CODE *
NAICS code
211120
211130
212114
212115
212210
212220
212230
212290
212311
212312
212313
212319
212321
212322
212323
212390
327310
327410
331313
SBA size
standards in
maximum
number of
employees **
Industry description
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
Crude petroleum extraction *** .....................................................................
Natural Gas Extraction *** ............................................................................
Surface Coal Mining .....................................................................................
Underground Coal Mining ............................................................................
Iron Ore Mining ............................................................................................
Gold Ore and Silver Ore Mining ..................................................................
Copper, Nickel, Lead, and Zinc Mining ........................................................
Other Metal Ore Mining ................................................................................
Dimension Stone Mining and Quarrying ......................................................
Crushed and Broken Limestone Mining and Quarrying ...............................
Crushed and Broken Granite Mining and Quarrying ...................................
Other Crushed and Broken Stone Mining and Quarrying ............................
Construction Sand and Gravel Mining .........................................................
Industrial Sand Mining ..................................................................................
Kaolin, Clay, and Ceramic and Refractory Minerals Mining ........................
Other Nonmetallic Mineral Mining and Quarrying ........................................
Cement Manufacturing .................................................................................
Lime Manufacturing ......................................................................................
Primary production of alumina and aluminum .............................................
1,250
1,250
1,250
1,500
750
1,500
750
750
500
750
750
500
500
500
500
500
1,000
750
1,300
Number
of all
controllers
4
1
282
122
31
142
45
29
491
820
182
760
3,221
172
161
151
74
58
3
Number of
small-entity
controllers
3
0
237
99
26
108
33
22
432
738
165
704
2,984
155
143
123
53
49
3
* Each mine is assigned only one NAICS (as its major product) but some controllers that own more than one mine own mines that are in different NAICS. Consequently, some controllers have more than one NAICS (when they own mines with different NAICS) and they are therefore
counted more than once in this table. See Table _–2 for the distribution of controllers by the NAICS code for which they have the most employees, which will then show only one NAICS code for each controller.
** SBA, effective July 14, 2022.
*** These categories are commonly associated with mines with activities involving crude petroleum or natural gas extraction, but the mines in
these categories that are counted here, and included in this analysis, also involve mining operations that would fall under MSHA’s jurisdiction.
This analysis does not include crude petroleum or natural gas extraction (and the mines that perform them exclusively) since MSHA does not
regulate these activities.
Each mine is assigned only one
NAICS code, with that code reflecting
what that mine produces the most.
There are several cases in which more
than one mine, owned by the same
controller, have different NAICS codes,
and as a result that one controller has
multiple NAICS codes. For this reason,
some controllers are counted more than
once in this Table IV–1 (as also
explained in a footnote in the table). In
particular, of the 5,879 unique
controllers identified in 2021, 608 of
them each owned multiple mines with
different NAICS codes. In theory, this
could present an ambiguity as to
whether a controller, with more than
one NAICS code, should be considered
a small entity or not. Since NAICS codes
vary by their small-entity thresholds, it
is theoretically possible for a controller
with more than one NAICS code to be
a small entity according to the threshold
for one of its NAICS codes, while not
being a small entity under the lower
threshold that applies to another of its
NAICS codes. However, this situation
was not found to occur for any of the
controllers; all controllers that were
determined to be small entities met the
conditions for a small entity for each of
their NAICS codes.
While some controllers are in more
than one mining NAICS code, the
distribution of controllers by their most
significant NAICS code may also
provide useful information about the
general structure of the industry.
Therefore, MSHA also prepared Table
IV–2 to present the distribution of
controllers by the one NAICS code
under which the largest number of their
employees are reported. This table then
assigns only one NAICS code for each
controller, allowing for a count of
controllers by their (mutually exclusive)
most significant NAICS code in
mining.17
TABLE IV–2—SMALL ENTITIES AFFECTED BY THE FINAL RULE: DISTRIBUTION OF CONTROLLERS BY NAICS CATEGORY,
WITH ONE NAICS CODE PER CONTROLLER *
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
NAICS code
211120
211130
212114
212115
212210
SBA size
standards
in maximum
number of
employees **
Industry description
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
Crude Petroleum Extraction *** ....................................................................
Natural Gas Extraction *** ............................................................................
Surface Coal Mining .....................................................................................
Underground Coal Mining ............................................................................
Iron Ore Mining ............................................................................................
1,250
1,250
1,250
1,500
750
17 Note that many of the controllers also own
operations in other, non-mining industries, and in
other mining operations in other nations.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Dec 19, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM
20DER1
Number
of all
controllers
3
1
246
93
19
Number
of small-entity
controllers
3
0
218
75
18
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
87919
TABLE IV–2—SMALL ENTITIES AFFECTED BY THE FINAL RULE: DISTRIBUTION OF CONTROLLERS BY NAICS CATEGORY,
WITH ONE NAICS CODE PER CONTROLLER *—Continued
NAICS code
212220
212230
212290
212311
212312
212313
212319
212321
212322
212323
212390
327310
327410
331313
SBA size
standards
in maximum
number of
employees **
Industry description
Number
of all
controllers
Number
of small-entity
controllers
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
Gold Ore and Silver Ore Mining ..................................................................
Copper, Nickel, Lead, and Zinc Mining ........................................................
Other Metal Ore Mining ................................................................................
Dimension Stone Mining and Quarrying ......................................................
Crushed and Broken Limestone Mining and Quarrying ...............................
Crushed and Broken Granite Mining and Quarrying ...................................
Other Crushed and Broken Stone Mining and Quarrying ............................
Construction Sand and Gravel Mining .........................................................
Industrial Sand Mining ..................................................................................
Kaolin, Clay, and Ceramic and Refractory Minerals Mining ........................
Other Nonmetallic Mineral Mining and Quarrying ........................................
Cement Manufacturing .................................................................................
Lime Manufacturing ......................................................................................
Primary production of alumina and aluminum .............................................
1,500
750
750
500
750
750
500
500
500
500
500
1,000
750
1,300
98
31
14
415
716
133
617
3,046
120
108
108
61
48
2
82
25
12
382
675
130
596
2,839
113
101
95
49
47
2
Total ...........
.......................................................................................................................
........................
5,879
5,462
* Each controller is assigned the one NAICS code for which it devotes the most employees, based on the employees at its mines and each of
its mines being associated with only one NAICS code.
** SBA, effective July 14, 2022.
*** These categories are commonly associated with mines with activities involving crude petroleum or natural gas extraction, but the mines in
these categories that are counted here, and included in this analysis, also involve mining operations that would fall under MSHA’s jurisdiction.
This analysis does not include crude petroleum or natural gas extraction (and the mines that perform them exclusively) since MSHA does not
regulate these activities.
MSHA estimated the costs of the rule
for small-entity controllers by summing
the costs for each of these controller’s
mines. The estimated cost for each mine
was based on the number of miners at
that mine, and the mine’s industry
category. Thus, if two mines belonging
to the same controller had different
NAICS codes, both of those NAICS
codes would be accounted for, and the
total cost to the controller would be
calculated as the total cost for all of that
controller’s mines. Similarly, the
estimated revenues of controllers were
derived as the sum of the revenues of
each of their mines, which was, in turn,
dependent on the NAICS codes
associated with those mines. Thus, all of
NAICS codes for all of the mines, and
all of the mines under all of the NAICS
codes, were accounted for in the
estimates of the costs and revenues of
controllers.
As shown in Table IV–2, MSHA
determined that, in 2021, there were a
total of 5,879 controllers, and 5,462 of
them were small-entity controllers.
These small-entity controllers owned a
total of 9,395 mines, out of the 12,529
mines owned by all controllers in 2021.
Table IV–3 presents a summary of the
main findings regarding small-entity
controllers. As shown, MSHA estimated
the total cost of the rule to all 5,462
small-entity controllers to be $26.69
million in the first year, and $8.17
million in each subsequent year (in
2021 dollars). Per small entity, this
amounted to an average compliance cost
of $4,886 in the first year and $1,496 in
each year thereafter. MSHA estimated
the total revenues of the 5,462 smallentity controllers to be $33,720 million
(in 2021 dollars). As a result of these
estimates, MSHA found the compliance
cost of the final rule to small entities, as
a percent of revenues, on average, to be
0.165 percent in the first year, and 0.069
percent in each subsequent year. Among
the small-entity controllers examined,
the compliance cost as a percent of
controllers’ revenues ranged from near
zero to a maximum of 0.341 percent in
the first year, and to a maximum of
0.175 percent in each year thereafter. On
the basis of these findings, MSHA
determined that the final rule does not
have a significant impact on small
entities controllers in the mining
industry.
TABLE IV–3—MAIN FINDINGS FOR 5,462 SMALL-ENTITY CONTROLLERS
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Economic measure
First year
Total Compliance Costs (in Millions of 2021 Dollars) .............................................................................................
Total Revenue (in Millions of 2021 Dollars) ............................................................................................................
Average Compliance Cost per Small-Entity Controller (in 2021 Dollars) ...............................................................
Ratio of Total Compliance Cost/Total Revenue (in Percent) ..................................................................................
Average of the Ratios of Compliance Cost/Revenue (in Percent) .........................................................................
Small-entity independent contractors:
For its analysis of independent
contractors designated under part 45 of
30 CFR, MSHA used MSIS data to first
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Dec 19, 2023
Jkt 262001
derive a list of all mining contractors in
the year 2021. The list contained a total
of 6,318 contractors. While these
contractors varied greatly in terms of
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
$26.69
$33,720
$4,886
0.079
0.165
Each
subsequent
year
$8.17
$33,720
$1,496
0.024
0.069
their corresponding NAICS codes,
MSHA determined that the most
relevant NAICS codes for characterizing
the mining contractors were the NAICS
E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM
20DER1
87920
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Codes for (1) ‘‘Support Activities for
Coal Mining’’ (213113), (2) ‘‘Support
Activities for Metal Mining’’ (213114),
and (3) ‘‘Support Activities for
Nonmetallic Minerals’’ (213115). MSHA
did not have data on parent companies
of these contractors. However, MSHA
analyzed data on enterprises and
establishments in these NAICS codes
from the Census Bureau, Statistics of
U.S. Businesses (SUSB).18 The SUSB
data on entities in these three NAICS
codes indicated that the vast majority of
contractors (which would be listed
separately in MSHA’s data) are,
themselves, parent companies.
Specifically, based on the SUSB data on
parent companies and the enterprises
that belong to them, MSHA observed
that the number of enterprises in these
three NAICS codes, on average,
exceeded the number of parent
companies by only about 9 percent.
Therefore, over 91 percent of parent
companies that are mining contractors
have only one establishment, implying
that the vast majority of listed
contractors are themselves parent
companies, rather than subsidiaries of
larger companies. Based on these
findings, MSHA assumed in its analysis
that the contractors on its list are parent
companies.
Based on this assumption that each of
the listed mining contractors in 2021 is
not a subsidiary of a larger company,
MSHA estimated how many of them
would be considered small entities
under the RFA. To make this
determination, MSHA applied the size
thresholds for the three NAICS
categories for support activities for
mining (213113, 213114, and 213115).
Small entities in NAICS 213113
(support activities for coal mining) are
those with annual revenues below the
threshold of $27.5 million in 2022
dollars, while those in NAICS 213114
(support activities for metal mining) and
NAICS 213115 (support activities for
nonmetallic minerals) have annual
revenues of less than $41.0 million and
$20.5 million, respectively.19 In
estimating how many contractors are
small entities, MSHA conservatively
applied the $20.5 million (in 2022
dollars) threshold, so as not to
underestimate the number of small
entities.20 MSHA’s estimation of the
number of small-entity contractors may
therefore be an overestimation;
however, MSHA still believes it is a
close approximation to the number of
small-entity contractors that would be
determined if more detailed data were
available.
From the employment and revenue
data in the SUSB tables for the three
NAICS Codes for support activities for
mines, MSHA estimated that mining
support contractors have, on average,
revenues of approximately $315,000 (in
2017 dollars) per employee.21
MSHA’s data on mining contractors
included the number of employees
working for each contractor. MSHA was
able to estimate the revenue of each
contractor by multiplying its number of
employees by the average revenue per
employee of $315,000 from the SUSB
data. From these estimates of each
contractor’s revenue, MSHA estimated
that approximately 4,469 contractors out
of a total of 4,739 contractors affected by
the rule (or about 94.3 percent of those
contractors) are potentially small
entities, under the threshold of $17.4
million (in 2017 $) in annual revenue.
Table IV–3 presents a summary of the
main findings on mining contractors
that would be affected by the rule. As
shown, MSHA estimated the total cost
to all 4,469 potential small-entity
contractors of the rule to be $2.69
million in the first year and $0.954
million in each subsequent year. Per
small-entity contractor, this amounted
to an average cost of $453 in the first
year and $212 in each year thereafter.
MSHA estimated the total revenues of
the 4,469 potential small-entity
contractors to be $12,783 million (in
2021 dollars). As a result of these
estimates, MSHA found the cost of the
final rule to small-entity contractors, as
a percent of revenue, to be, on average
across the contractors, 0.0211 percent of
revenue in the first year and 0.0074
percent of revenue in each subsequent
year. On the basis of these findings,
MSHA determined that the final rule
does not have a significant impact on
small-entity-contractors in the mining
industry.
TABLE IV–3—MAIN FINDINGS FOR 4,469 SMALL-ENTITY CONTRACTORS
Economic measure
First year
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Total Compliance Costs (in Millions of 2021 Dollars) .............................................................................................
Total Revenue (in Millions of 2021 Dollars) ............................................................................................................
Average Compliance Cost Per Small-Entity Contractor (in 2021 Dollars) ..............................................................
Ratio of Total Compliance Cost/Total Revenue (in Percent) ..................................................................................
Average of the Ratios of Compliance Cost/Revenue (in Percent) .........................................................................
In conclusion, MSHA determined that
the rule does not have a significant
effect on either small-entity mining
controllers or small-entity mining
contractors. MSHA therefore certifies
that this final rule does not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
V. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
18 Census Bureau, Statistics of U.S. Businesses.
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/
susb/2017-susb-annual.html.
19 Small Business Administration, Table of Size
Standards: Effective July 14, 2022. https://
www.sba.gov/document/support-table-sizestandards.
20 MSHA translated the threshold of $20.5 million
in 2022 dollars to $17.44 million in 2017 dollars
based on the Bureau of Economic Analysis’ GDP
Price Index.
21 It is important to note that, although, contractor
revenues may be close in magnitude to their costs,
those costs often far exceed their labor costs, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Dec 19, 2023
Jkt 262001
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521) 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 under 5 CFR part 1320.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
$2.69
$12,783
$453
0.0211
0.0460
Each
subsequent
year
$0.95
$12,783
$212
0.0074
0.0212
The PRA requires Federal agencies to
obtain approval from OMB before
requesting or requiring ‘‘a collection of
information’’ from the public.
MSHA determined that this final rule
creates a new information collection
burden for the mining community.
However, the final rule does not contain
changes that transfer burden from, or
add burden to, existing information
therefore their revenue per employee would be
expected to far exceed their average salaries. Such
additional costs, besides labor costs, include the
costs of equipment, fuel, overhead, taxes, etc.
E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM
20DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
collections because the paperwork
requirements in this rule are applicable
to only the new information collection
discussed below. MSHA expects that
some mine operators may use existing
information collections to help the
development or implementation of a
written safety program at their mine. For
example, under OMB No. 1219–0089,
Safety Defects; Examination, Correction,
and Records, MNM operators record
inspections of surface mobile equipment
before equipment is placed in operation
and when equipment is removed from
service to be repaired before use is
resumed. Under OMB No. 1219–0083,
Surface Coal Mines Daily Inspection;
Certified Person; Reports of Inspection,
coal mine operators record reports of
hazardous conditions in active work
areas of surface operations along with a
description of any corrective actions
taken. Some operators may incorporate
these existing information collections, if
applicable, into their safety program for
surface mobile equipment because they
have determined the existing
information collections would support
the safety program’s development or
implementation. Hence, only new
requirements from this final rule will be
recorded under this new information
collection and there will be no change
to existing information collections.
Once OMB completes its review of
MSHA’s new information collection, the
Agency will publish a notice on the new
information collection under the
Information Collection Review (ICR)
1219–0155. (The regulated community
is not required to respond to any
collection of information unless it
displays a current, valid, OMB control
number.)
A. New Information Collection Under
‘‘Safety Program for Surface Mobile
Equipment’’
Under this final rule, new burdens
will apply to operators and independent
contractors who are subject to 30 CFR
part 45, as discussed below.
Section 56.23003(a) requires operators
of surface metal and nonmetal mines to
develop, implement, and update a
written safety program for surface
mobile equipment to reduce the number
and rates of accidents, injuries, and
fatalities. This subpart applies to all
surface mobile equipment at surface
metal and nonmetal mines. Such a
program will include actions the
operator will take to:
(1) Identify and analyze hazards and
reduce the resulting risks related to the
movement and the operation of surface
mobile equipment;
(2) Develop and maintain procedures
and schedules for routine maintenance
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Dec 19, 2023
Jkt 262001
and non-routine repairs for surface
mobile equipment;
(3) Identify currently available and
newly emerging feasible technologies
that enhance safety at the mine and
evaluate whether to adopt them; and
(4) Train miners and other persons at
the mine necessary to perform work to
identify and address or avoid hazards
related to surface mobile equipment.
Section 57.23003(a) requires operators
of underground metal and nonmetal
mines to develop, implement, and
update a written safety program for
surface mobile equipment to reduce the
number and rates of accidents, injuries,
and fatalities. This subpart applies to all
surface mobile equipment at surface
areas of underground metal and
nonmetal mines. Such a program will
describe actions the operator will take
to:
(1) Identify and analyze hazards and
reduce the resulting risks related to the
movement and the operation of surface
mobile equipment;
(2) Develop and maintain procedures
and schedules for routine maintenance
and non-routine repairs for surface
mobile equipment;
(3) Identify currently available and
newly emerging feasible technologies
that enhance safety at the mine and
evaluate whether to adopt them; and
(4) Train miners and other persons at
the mine necessary to perform work to
identify and address or avoid hazards
related to surface mobile equipment.
Section 77.2103(a) requires operators
of surface coal mines and surface work
areas of underground coal mines to
develop, implement, and update a
written safety program for surface
mobile equipment to reduce the number
and rates of accidents, injuries, and
fatalities. This subpart applies to all
surface mobile equipment at surface
coal mines and surface work areas of
underground coal mines. Such a
program will describe actions the
operator will take to:
(1) Identify and analyze hazards and
reduce the resulting risks related to the
movement and the operation of surface
mobile equipment;
(2) Develop and maintain procedures
and schedules for routine maintenance
and non-routine repairs for surface
mobile equipment;
(3) Identify currently available and
newly emerging feasible technologies
that enhance safety at the mine and
evaluate whether to adopt them; and
(4) Train miners and other persons at
the mine necessary to perform work to
identify and address or avoid hazards
related to surface mobile equipment.
In addition, §§ 56.23003(b),
57.23003(b), and 77.2103(b) require
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
87921
evaluation and updates to the written
safety program at least annually, or as
mining conditions or practices change
that may adversely affect the health and
safety of miners or other persons, as
accidents or injuries occur, or as surface
mobile equipment changes or
modifications are made.
B. Information Collection Requirements
I. Type of Review: New Collection.
OMB Control Number: 1219–0155.
1. Title: Safety Program for Surface
Mobile Equipment.
2. Description of the ICR: This final
rule on safety program for surface
mobile equipment contains collection of
information requirements that will
assist miners, operators, and
independent contractors in identifying
risks to their safety and help reduce
injuries and fatalities at mines.
There are provisions of this final rule
that have different burden hours,
burden costs, and responses each year.
Therefore, MSHA shows the estimates
of burden hours, burden costs, and
responses in three separate years.
3. Summary of the Collection of
Information:
Sections 56.23003(a), 57.23003(a),
77.2103(a)—Developing and
Implementing Written Safety Program
ICR. Final §§ 56.23003(a), 57.23003(a),
and 77.2103(a) require operators to
develop and implement written safety
programs.
Number of respondents. For
§§ 56.23003(a), 57.23003(a), and
71.2103(a), the respondents consist of
operators and independent contractors
owning and using surface mobile
equipment since they will be
responsible for developing and
implementing the written safety
program for surface mobile equipment.
MSHA estimates that, based on its
2021 data, a total of 17,133 respondents
(12,394 operators and 4,739 part 45
independent contractors) will develop a
written safety program for surface
mobile equipment in the first year of
implementation. MSHA estimated that
12,394 are surface mines and
underground mines with surface areas,
so the operators of those mines are
assumed to comply with this rule.
MSHA estimates that some operators
may need to update, enhance, or even
develop portions of this written safety
program to meet current requirements.
MSHA estimated that no additional
recordkeeping costs will be generated by
the activities associated with training
because this activity is already being
performed during compliance efforts for
existing training standards.
E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM
20DER1
87922
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Annual number of responses. The
estimated average annual number of
responses will be 17,133.
Estimated annual burden. The total
burden arising from the development of
the safety program in the first year of
implementation is estimated to be
682,833 hours, which includes 297,687
hours to list the actions the operator
will take to conduct the mine-specific
hazard analysis and technology
evaluation components of the safety
program, 383,860 hours for listing the
actions operators will take to develop a
maintenance schedule for surface
mobile equipment as part of the written
safety program (if needed), as well as
1,285 hours to make available and copy
the written safety program. An average
burden per respondent is estimated to
be 39.85 hours to develop a written
safety program for surface mobile
equipment in the first year.
Sections 56.23003(b), 57.23003(b), and
71.2103(b)—Annual Updates to the
Written Safety Program
ICR. Final §§ 56.23003(b),
57.23003(b), and 71.2103(b) require the
responsible person to evaluate and
Estimated annual burden. The total
burden arising from the annual and
other updating of the safety program
will be 259,834 hours in the second and
third years of implementation, 129,917
hours each year. This annual burden
includes updates to the written safety
program arising from changing
conditions at mine sites, surface mobile
equipment unit updates, as well as
making available and copying the
written safety program. The estimated
annual burden per respondent is 7.58
hours.
Besides the development and update
of the written safety program, no
additional information collection cost is
expected. Information collection
associated with training requirements in
this final rule is covered under existing
regulations in 30 CFR parts 46, 48, and
77.
update the written safety program for
the mine at least annually, or as mining
conditions or practices change that may
adversely affect the health and safety of
miners or other persons, as accidents or
injuries occur, or as surface mobile
equipment changes or modifications are
made.
Number of respondents. For
§§ 56.23003(b), 57.23003(b), and
71.2103(b), the respondents will consist
of all operators and contractors who
have developed a written safety program
for surface mobile equipment. MSHA
estimates that a total of 17,133 mine
operators and independent contractors
will subsequently update a written
safety program for surface mobile
equipment in years two and three. The
respondents will update at least
annually, or as mining conditions or
practices change that may adversely
affect the health and safety of miners or
other persons, as accidents or injuries
occur, or as surface mobile equipment
changes or modifications are made.
Annual number of responses. The
estimated average annual number of
responses will be 17,133.
Total Recordkeeping and
Documentation Burden for the Safety
Program for Surface Mobile Equipment
Rule
TABLE V–1—ESTIMATED ANNUAL RECORDKEEPING AND DOCUMENTATION BURDEN
Annual
number of
respondents
Year
Annual
number of
responses
Annual
burden per
respondent
Estimated
annual burden
(Hours)
Year 1 ............................................................................................................
Year 2 ............................................................................................................
Year 3 ............................................................................................................
17,133
17,133
17,133
17,133
17,133
17,133
39.85
7.58
7.58
682,833
129,917
129,917
3-Year Total ............................................................................................
Annual Average ......................................................................................
17,133
17,133
51,399
17,133
55.02
18.34
942,666
314,222
The cost estimates of information
collection burden are calculated as
follows. In the first year, the average
burden per respondent for developing a
safety program, combining hazard
analysis and technology evaluation,
identifying actions operators will take to
maintain and repair equipment and
train miners as well as making available
and copying the written safety program,
is 39.85 hours for a total of 682,833
burden hours in Year 1. In Years 2 and
3, the average burden per respondent for
updating a safety program is 7.58 hours,
for a total of 129,917 burden hours in
Year 2 and 129,917 burden hours in
Year 3.
MSHA determined the hourly wage
rates through data from the U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS), Occupational
Employment and Wage Statistics
(OEWS) published May 2021. Annual
Burden Hours are summarized in Table
V–2.
TABLE V–2—WAGE AND HOUR BURDENS
Loaded hourly
wage rate *
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Occupation
Mining Supervisor, MNM ...............................................................................
Mining Supervisor, Coal ................................................................................
Maintenance and Mechanic, MNM ................................................................
Maintenance and Mechanic, Coal .................................................................
Occupational Health & Safety Specialist, MNM ............................................
Occupational Health & Safety Specialist, Coal .............................................
Clerk, MNM ....................................................................................................
Clerk, Coal .....................................................................................................
Clerk, Contractor ............................................................................................
Mining Supervisor, Contractor .......................................................................
Maintenance and Mechanic, Contractor ........................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Dec 19, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
$61.41
71.79
42.22
47.70
59.06
68.29
35.58
35.01
35.45
63.70
43.43
Year 1
burden hours
241,085.00
21,198.80
307,802.50
33,406.80
16,318.40
8,422.40
858.78
70.80
355.43
10,662.75
42,651.00
E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM
20DER1
Year 2
burden hours
Year 3
burden hours
103,182.50
7,989.28
........................
........................
4,561.34
2,354.24
858.78
70.80
355.43
10,544.28
........................
103,182.50
7,989.28
........................
........................
4,561.34
2,354.24
858.78
70.80
355.43
10,544.28
........................
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
87923
TABLE V–2—WAGE AND HOUR BURDENS—Continued
Loaded hourly
wage rate *
Occupation
Year 1
burden hours
Year 2
burden hours
Year 3
burden hours
Occupational Health & Safety Specialist, Contractor ....................................
61.09
........................
........................
........................
Total (Rounded) ......................................................................................
..........................
682,833
129,917
129,917
* Loaded hourly wages are mean wages that are increased by a benefits multiplier of 1.488 plus a separate overhead multiplier of 1.01.
The resulting annual burden cost is
summarized in Table V–3.
TABLE V–3—SUMMARY OF INFORMATION COLLECTION BURDEN FOR SAFETY PROGRAM FOR SURFACE MOBILE EQUIPMENT
Year 1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Number of Respondents ..................................................................................
Number of Responses .....................................................................................
Number of Burden Hours (Rounded) ..............................................................
Respondent or Recordkeeping Costs (Rounded) ...........................................
1. Affected Public: Business or other
for-profit.
2. Estimated Number of Respondents:
17,133 respondents in the first year;
17,133 respondents in the second year;
and 17,133 respondents in the third
year.
3. Frequency: On occasion.
4. Estimated Number of Responses:
17,133 responses in the first year;
17,133 responses in the second year;
and 17,133 responses in the third year.
5. Estimated Number of Burden
Hours: 682,833 hours in the first year;
129,917 hours in the second year; and
129,917 hours in the third year.
6. Estimated Respondent or
Recordkeeper Hour Burden Costs:
$25,700 in the first year; $25,700 in the
second year; and $25,700 in the third
year.
For a detailed summary of the burden
hours and related costs by provision, see
the FRIA accompanying the final rule.
The FRIA includes the estimated costs
and assumptions for the paperwork
requirements related to this final rule.
MSHA received comments on the
information collection requirements
contained in the proposed rule (86 FR
50496). These comments are addressed
in the Supporting Statement for the
information collection requirements for
this final rule. The Information
Collection Supporting Statement is
available at https://www.reginfo.gov/
public/do/PRAMain, on MSHA’s
website at https://www.msha.gov/regs/
fedreg/informationcollection/
informationcollection.asp, and at https://
www.regulations.gov. A copy of the
Statement is also available from MSHA
by request to S. Aromie Noe at
Noe.Song-Ae.A@dol.gov, by phone
request to 202–693–9440, or by
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Dec 19, 2023
Jkt 262001
17,133
17,133
682,833
$25,700
Year 2
17,133
17,133
129,917
$25,700
Year 3
17,133
17,133
129,917
$25,700
Annual
average
17,133
17,133
314,222
$25,700
facsimile to 202–693–9441. These are
not toll-free numbers.
Reform Act of 1995 requires no further
Agency action or analysis.
VI. Other Regulatory Considerations
C. The Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act of
1999: Assessment of Federal
Regulations and Policies on Families
Section 654 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act of 1999 (5 U.S.C. 601 note) requires
agencies to assess the impact of Agency
action on family well-being. MSHA has
determined that the final rule has no
effect on family stability or safety,
marital commitment, parental rights and
authority, or income or poverty of
families and children, as defined in the
Act. Accordingly, MSHA determines
that the final rule does not impact
family well-being, as defined in the Act.
A. National Environmental Policy Act of
1969
The National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.), requires each Federal agency to
consider the environmental effects of
final actions and to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement on
major actions significantly affecting the
quality of the environment. MSHA has
reviewed the final rule in accordance
with NEPA requirements, the
regulations of the Council on
Environmental Quality (40 CFR part
1500), and the Department of Labor’s
NEPA compliance procedures (29 CFR
part 11). As a result of this review,
MSHA has determined that this final
rule will not have a significant
environmental impact. Accordingly,
MSHA has not conducted an
environmental assessment nor provided
an environmental impact statement.
B. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Act) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
requires Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their discretionary regulatory
actions. In particular, the Act addresses
actions that may result in the
expenditure by State, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million (adjusted
annually for inflation) or more in any 1
year. MSHA has reviewed the final rule
and has determined that it does not
result in such an expenditure.
Accordingly, the Unfunded Mandates
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
D. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act (5
U.S.C. 801 et seq.) allows Congress to
review ‘‘major’’ rules issued by federal
agencies. The Congressional Review Act
states that, before a rule may take effect,
the agency issuing the rule must submit
the rule, and certain related
information, to each House of Congress
and the Comptroller General. 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1). The Congressional Review Act
defines a major rule as one that has
resulted in or is likely to result in (1) an
annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more; (2) a major increase in
costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, federal, state, or
local government agencies, or
geographic regions; or (3) significant
adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity,
or innovation, or on the ability of
United States-based enterprises to
compete with foreign-based enterprises
E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM
20DER1
87924
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
in domestic and export markets. 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act, this rule is not a ‘‘major rule,’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). However,
pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act, MSHA will submit a copy of this
final rule to both Houses of Congress
and to the Comptroller General.
E. Executive Order 12630: Government
Actions and Interference With
Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights
E.O. 12630 requires Federal agencies
to ‘‘identify the takings implications of
proposed regulatory actions . . . .’’
MSHA has determined that the final
rule does not include a regulatory or
policy action with takings implications.
Accordingly, E.O. 12630 requires no
further Agency action or analysis.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
F. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice
Reform
Section 3 of E.O. 12988 contains
requirements for Federal agencies
promulgating new regulations or
reviewing existing regulations to
minimize litigation by eliminating
drafting errors and ambiguity, providing
a clear legal standard for affected
conduct rather than a general standard,
promoting simplification, and reducing
burden. MSHA has reviewed the final
rule and has determined that it meets
the applicable standards provided in
E.O. 12988 to minimize litigation and
undue burden on the Federal court
system. Accordingly, the final rule
meets the applicable standards provided
in E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
E.O. 13045 requires Federal agencies
submitting covered regulatory actions to
OMB’s Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review,
pursuant to E.O. 12866, to provide OIRA
with (1) an evaluation of the
environmental health or safety effects
that the planned regulation may have on
children, and (2) an explanation of why
the planned regulation is preferable to
other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the agency. In E.O. 13045,
‘‘covered regulatory action’’ is defined
as rules that may (1) be significant
under E.O. 12866, supplemented by
E.O. 14094, (i.e., a rulemaking that has
an annual effect on the economy of $200
million or more or would adversely
affect in a material way the economy, a
sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety, or State, local or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Dec 19, 2023
Jkt 262001
tribal governments or communities),
and (2) concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk that an agency
has reason to believe may
disproportionately affect children.
Environmental health risks and safety
risks refer to risks to health or to safety
that are attributable to products or
substances that the child is likely to
come in to contact with or ingest
through air, food, water, soil, or product
use or exposure.
This final rule is not subject to E.O.
13045 because it is not significant under
section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866, and
because it does not concern an
environmental health risk or safety risk
that may disproportionately affect
children. This final rule is requiring that
operators develop, implement, and
update a written safety program for
surface mobile equipment (excluding
belt conveyors) at surface mines and
surface areas of underground mines.
The written safety program includes
actions operators will take to identify
hazards and risks to reduce accidents,
injuries, and fatalities related to surface
mobile equipment. This rule does not
concern risks to health or to safety that
are attributable to products or
substances that children are likely to
come in to contact with or ingest
through air, food, water, soil, or product
use or exposure. Accordingly, E.O.
13045 requires no further Agency action
or analysis.
H. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
MSHA has determined that the final
rule does not have federalism
implications because it does 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, E.O.
13132 requires no further Agency action
or analysis.
I. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
MSHA has determined that the final
rule does not have tribal implications
because it does 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, E.O. 13175 requires no
further Agency action or analysis.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
J. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
E.O. 13211 requires agencies to
publish a Statement of Energy Effects for
‘‘significant energy actions’’ which are
agency actions that are ‘‘likely to have
a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy’’
including a ‘‘shortfall in supply, price
increases, and increased use of foreign
supplies.’’ MSHA reviewed the final
rule for its impact on the production of
coal and uranium mining. The final rule
results in annualized costs of
approximately $12.6 million (in 2021
dollars, undiscounted) to covered
surface mines and surface areas of
underground mines, though most of
these costs will be incurred in MNM
mining that does not involve uranium
mining (nor coal mining). MSHA
therefore determined that such costs do
not have any substantive effect on coal
and uranium mining. Because the final
rule does not result in a significant
adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy, it is not
a ‘‘significant energy action.’’
Accordingly, E.O. 13211 requires no
further Agency action or analysis.
K. Executive Order 13985: Advancing
Racial Equity and Support for
Underserved Communities Through the
Federal Government; Executive Order
14091: Further Advancing Racial Equity
and Support for Underserved
Communities Through the Federal
Government
E.O. 13985 provides ‘‘that the Federal
Government should pursue a
comprehensive approach to advancing
equity for all, including people of color
and others who have been historically
underserved, marginalized, and
adversely affected by persistent poverty
and inequality.’’ E.O. 13985 defines
‘‘equity’’ as ‘‘consistent and systematic
fair, just, and impartial treatment of all
individuals, including individuals who
belong to underserved communities that
have been denied such treatment, such
as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and
Native American persons, Asian
Americans and Pacific Islanders and
other persons of color; members of
religious minorities; lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender, and queer
(LGBTQ+) persons; persons with
disabilities; persons who live in rural
areas; and persons otherwise adversely
affected by persistent poverty or
inequality.’’ To assess the impact of the
final rule on equity, MSHA considered
two factors: (1) the racial/ethnic
distribution in mining in NAICS 212
E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM
20DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
(which does not include oil and gas
extraction) compared to the racial/
ethnic distribution of the U.S. workforce
(Table VI–1), and (2) the extent to which
mining may be concentrated within
general mining communities (Table VI–
2).
In 2008, NIOSH conducted a survey of
mines, which entailed sending a survey
packet to 2,321 mining operations to
collect a wide range of information,
including demographic information on
miners. NIOSH’s 2012 report, entitled
‘‘National Survey of the Mining
Population: Part I: Employees’’ reported
the findings of this survey.22 Race and
ethnicity information about U.S. mine
workers is presented in Table VI–1. Of
all mine workers, including miners as
well as administrative employees at
mines, 93.4 percent of mine workers
were white, compared to 80.6 percent of
all U.S workers.23 There were larger
percentages of American Indian or
Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islander people in the
mining industry compared to all U.S.
workers, while there were smaller
percentages of Asian, Black or African
American, and Hispanic/Latino people
in the mining industry compared to all
U.S. workers.
Section 6 of E.O. 14091 further
provides that agencies are ‘‘to create
equitable economic opportunity and
advance projects that build community
wealth’’ in rural America. The final rule
helps miners in rural areas by
improving safety and health at their
mines. Table VI–2 shows that there are
22 mining communities, defined as
counties where at least 2 percent of the
population is working in the mining
industry.24 Although the total
population in this table represents only
0.15 percent of the U.S. population, it
represents 12.0 percent of all mine
workers. The average per capita income
in these communities in 2020,
$47,977,25 was lower than the U.S.
87925
average, $59,510, representing 80.6
percent of the U.S. average. However,
each county’s average per capita income
varies substantially, ranging from 56.4
percent of the U.S. average to 146.8
percent.
This final rule is requiring that
operators develop, implement, and
update a written safety program for
surface mobile equipment (excluding
belt conveyors) at surface mines and
surface areas of underground mines.
The written safety program includes
actions operators will take to identify
hazards and risks to reduce accidents,
injuries, and fatalities related to surface
mobile equipment. MSHA determined
that the final rule is consistent with the
goals of E.O. 13985 and supports the
advancement of equity for all workers at
mines, including those who are
historically underserved and
marginalized.
TABLE VI–1—RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISTRIBUTION OF MINERS *
[2012]
Number of miners
in mining
(except oil and gas)
(NAICS 212)
As a percent of total
miners who self-identified
in these categories
(latest data for 2008)
Percent of all workers
in the United States
for comparison
(latest data 2012) ****
Ethnicity:
Hispanic/Latino ...........................................................
Non-Hispanic or Latino ...............................................
26,622
192,839
12.1
87.9
15.0
85.0
Total .....................................................................
219,461
100.0
100.0
Race: **
American Indian or Alaska Native *** .........................
Asian ...........................................................................
Black or African American ..........................................
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander .................
White ...........................................................................
4,050
183
8,893
634
194,016
1.9
0.1
4.3
0.3
93.4
0.8
5.4
13.0
0.2
80.6
Total .....................................................................
207,776
100.0
100.0
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
* The term ‘‘miners’’ includes miners and other workers at mines such as administrative employees.
** Does not include miners who did not self-report in one of these categories. Some of the surveyed miners may not have self-reported in one
of these categories if they are affiliated with more than one race, or if they chose not to respond to this survey question.
*** Includes miners who self-identified as an American Indian or Alaskan Native as a single race, not in combination with any other races. No
other data on miners in this racial group were available from this source. In other employment statistics often reported on American Indians and
Alaska Natives, their population is based on self-reporting as being American Indian or Alaska Native in combination with any other race, which
has resulted in the reporting of much higher employment levels. See BLS, Monthly Labor Review, ‘‘Alternative Measurements of Indian Country:
Understanding Their Implications for Economic, Statistical, and Policy Analysis,’’ https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2021/article/alternative-measurements-of-indian-country.htm.
**** More recent data from the 2020 Decennial Census were not available in September 2022.
Sources: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 2012a. National Survey of the Mining Population Mining Publication:
Part 1: Employees, DHHS (NIOSH) Pub. No. 2012–152, June 2012; U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 American Community Survey (ACS).
22 National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH), ‘‘National Survey of the Mining
Population: Part I: Employees,’’ June 2012. https://
www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/works/
coversheet776.html.
23 National data on workers by race were not
available for the year 2008; comparable data for
2012 are provided for comparison under the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Dec 19, 2023
Jkt 262001
assumption that there would not be major
differences in distributions between these 2 years.
24 Although 2 percent may appear to be a small
number for identifying a mining community, one
might consider that if the average household with
one parent working as a miner has five members in
total, then approximately 10 percent of households
in the area would be directly associated with
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
mining. While 10 percent may also appear small,
this refers to the county. There are likely particular
areas that have a heavier concentration of mining
households.
25 This is a simple average rather than a weighted
average by population.
E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM
20DER1
87926
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE VI–2—MINING COUNTIES: COUNTIES IN THE UNITED STATES WITH RELATIVELY HIGH CONCENTRATIONS OF
MINERS *
[At least 2 percent of the county population]
Population of county
(latest data in 2021)
Estimated
percent of
population
who are
miners
Number
County
Number of miners
(first quarter 2022)
1 ..............
2 ..............
3 ..............
4 ..............
5 ..............
6 ..............
7 ..............
8 ..............
9 ..............
10 ............
11 ............
12 ............
13 ............
14 ............
15 ............
16 ............
17 ............
18 ............
19 ............
20 ............
21 ............
22 ............
White Pine County, Nevada .............
Pershing County, Nevada ................
Humboldt County, Nevada ...............
Campbell County, Wyoming ............
Winkler County, Texas .....................
Mercer County, North Dakota ..........
Chase County, Kansas ....................
Shoshone County, Idaho .................
Logan County, West Virginia ...........
Sweetwater County, Wyoming .........
Glasscock County, Texas ................
Livingston County, Kentucky ............
Buchanan County, Virginia ..............
McDowell County, West Virginia ......
Big Horn County, Wyoming .............
Sevier County, Utah .........................
Boone County, West Virginia ...........
Moffat County, Colorado ..................
Nye County, Nevada ........................
Raleigh County, West Virginia .........
Wyoming County, West Virginia ......
Elko County, Nevada .......................
1,288 ................................................
771 ...................................................
1,549 ................................................
3,547 ................................................
513 ...................................................
555 ...................................................
166 ...................................................
723 ...................................................
1,643 ................................................
2,050 ................................................
56 .....................................................
431 ...................................................
946 ...................................................
660 ...................................................
413 ...................................................
601 ...................................................
582 ...................................................
349 ...................................................
1,062 ................................................
1,647 ................................................
456 ...................................................
1,090 ................................................
9,182 ................................................
6,741 ................................................
17,648 ..............................................
46,401 ..............................................
7,415 ................................................
8,323 ................................................
2,598 ................................................
13,612 ..............................................
31,909 ..............................................
41,614 ..............................................
1,149 ................................................
8,959 ................................................
19,816 ..............................................
18,363 ..............................................
11,632 ..............................................
21,906 ..............................................
21,312 ..............................................
13,185 ..............................................
43,946 ..............................................
73,771 ..............................................
21,051 ..............................................
53,915 ..............................................
14.0
11.4
8.8
7.6
6.9
6.7
6.4
5.3
5.1
4.9
4.9
4.8
4.8
3.6
3.6
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.2
2.0
Total .......................................................................
20,963 ..............................................
494,448 ............................................
4.2
All U.S. Counties ....................................................
Miners in Mining Counties as a Percent of All
U.S. Miners.
Population of Mine Counties as a Percent of U.S.
Population.
174,387 ............................................
12.0% ...............................................
331,893,745 .....................................
...........................................................
........................
........................
...........................................................
0.15% ...............................................
........................
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
* The term ‘‘miners’’ includes miners and other workers at mines such as administrative employees.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Quarterly Employment and Wages First Quarter 2022 (2022); Bureau of Economic Analysis, Personal Income by County, Metro, and Other Areas 2020 (2020); U.S. Census Bureau, ‘‘Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Counties:
April 1, 2020, to July 1, 2021 (CO–EST2021–POP).’’ Census.gov. Accessed DATE. Available at: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/
demo/popest/2020s-counties-total.html; U.S. Census Bureau, Quick Facts, available at: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/
PST045221 (accessed DATE).
VII. References
30 CFR Part 77
American Society of Safety Professionals
(ASSP), Occupational Health and Safety
Management Systems, ANSI/ASSP Z10–
2012, (R2017).
International Standards Organization (ISO),
Occupational Health and Safety
Management Systems—Requirements
With Guidance for Use (ISO 45001:2018).
National Mining Association, CORESafety
and Health Management System
U.S Department of Labor, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA), Recommended Practices for
Safety and Health Programs (https://
www.osha.gov/safety-management).
U.S. Department of Transportation, 49 CFR
part 270—System Safety Program.
SUBCHAPTER K—METAL AND NONMETAL
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
Coal mining, Mine safety and health,
Surface mining, Mobile equipment
safety program, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and
Underground mining.
PART 56—SAFETY AND HEALTH
STANDARDS—SURFACE METAL AND
NONMETAL MINES
List of Subjects
30 CFR Parts 56 and 57
Metal and nonmetal mining, Mine
safety and health, Surface mining,
Mobile equipment safety program,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, and Underground mining.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Dec 19, 2023
Jkt 262001
Christopher J. Williamson
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety
and Health.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, and under the authority of the
Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of
1977, as amended by the Mine
Improvement and New Emergency
Response Act of 2006, chapter I of title
30 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
1. The authority citation for part 56
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811.
2. Add subpart T to part 56 to read as
follows:
■
Subpart T—Safety Program for Surface
Mobile Equipment
Sec.
56.23000 Purpose and scope.
56.23001 Definitions.
56.23002 Written safety program.
56.23003 Requirements for written safety
program.
56.23004 Record and inspection.
E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM
20DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
§ 56.23000
Purpose and scope.
This subpart requires operators to
develop, implement, and update a
written safety program for surface
mobile equipment to reduce the number
and rates of accidents, injuries, and
fatalities. This subpart applies to surface
mobile equipment at surface metal and
nonmetal mines. The purpose of this
safety program is to promote and
support a positive safety culture and
improve miners’ safety at the mine.
§ 56.23001
Definitions.
The following definitions apply in
this subpart—
Responsible person means a person
with authority and responsibility to
evaluate and update a written safety
program for surface mobile equipment.
Surface mobile equipment means
wheeled, skid-mounted, track-mounted,
or rail-mounted equipment capable of
moving or being moved, and any
powered equipment that transports
people, equipment, or materials,
excluding belt conveyors, at surface
metal and nonmetal mines.
§ 56.23002
Written safety program.
(a) Each operator shall develop and
implement a written safety program for
surface mobile equipment that contains
the elements in this subpart, no later
than July 17, 2024.
(b) Each operator shall designate at
least one responsible person to evaluate
and update the written safety program,
no later than July 17, 2024.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
§ 56.23003
program.
Requirements for written safety
(a) The operator shall develop and
implement a written safety program that
includes actions the operator will take
to:
(1) Identify and analyze hazards and
reduce the resulting risks related to the
movement and the operation of surface
mobile equipment;
(2) Develop and maintain procedures
and schedules for routine maintenance
and non-routine repairs for surface
mobile equipment;
(3) Identify currently available and
newly emerging feasible technologies
that can enhance safety at the mine and
evaluate whether to adopt them; and
(4) Train miners and other persons at
the mine necessary to perform work to
identify and address or avoid hazards
related to surface mobile equipment.
(b) The responsible person shall
evaluate and update the written safety
program at least annually, or as mining
conditions or practices change that may
adversely affect the health and safety of
miners or other persons, as accidents or
injuries occur, or as surface mobile
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Dec 19, 2023
Jkt 262001
equipment changes or modifications are
made.
(c) The operator shall solicit input
from miners and their representatives in
developing and updating the written
safety program.
§ 56.23004
Record and inspection.
(a) The operator shall make the
written safety program available for
inspection by authorized representatives
of the Secretary and provide a copy
upon request.
(b) The operator shall make the
written safety program available for
inspection by miners and their
representatives and, at no cost, provide
a copy upon request.
PART 57—SAFETY AND HEALTH
STANDARDS—UNDERGROUND
METAL AND NONMETAL MINES
3. The authority citation for part 57
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811.
4. Add subpart U to part 57 to read as
follows:
■
Subpart U—Safety Program for
Surface Mobile Equipment
Sec.
57.23000 Purpose and scope.
57.23001 Definitions.
57.23002 Written safety program.
57.23003 Requirements for written safety
program.
57.23004 Record and inspection.
§ 57.23000
Purpose and scope.
This subpart requires operators to
develop, implement, and update a
written safety program for surface
mobile equipment to reduce the number
and rates of accidents, injuries, and
fatalities. This subpart applies to surface
mobile equipment at surface areas of
underground metal and nonmetal
mines. The purpose of this safety
program is to promote and support a
positive safety culture and improve
miners’ safety at the mine.
§ 57.23001
Definitions.
The following definitions apply in
this subpart—
Responsible person means a person
with authority and responsibility to
evaluate and update a written safety
program for surface mobile equipment.
Surface mobile equipment means
wheeled, skid-mounted, track-mounted,
or rail-mounted equipment capable of
moving or being moved, and any
powered equipment that transports
people, equipment, or materials,
excluding belt conveyors, at surface
areas of underground metal and
nonmetal mines.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
§ 57.23002
87927
Written safety program.
(a) Each operator shall develop and
implement a written safety program for
surface mobile equipment that contains
the elements in this subpart, no later
than July 17, 2024.
(b) Each operator shall designate at
least one responsible person to evaluate
and update the written safety program,
no later than July 17, 2024.
§ 57.23003
program.
Requirements for written safety
(a) The operator shall develop and
implement a written safety program that
includes actions the operator will take
to:
(1) Identify and analyze hazards and
reduce the resulting risks related to the
movement and the operation of surface
mobile equipment;
(2) Develop and maintain procedures
and schedules for routine maintenance
and non-routine repairs for surface
mobile equipment;
(3) Identify currently available and
newly emerging feasible technologies
that can enhance safety at the mine and
evaluate whether to adopt them; and
(4) Train miners and other persons at
the mine necessary to perform work to
identify and address or avoid hazards
related to surface mobile equipment.
(b) The responsible person shall
evaluate and update the written safety
program at least annually, or as mining
conditions or practices change that may
adversely affect the health and safety of
miners or other persons, as accidents or
injuries occur, or as surface mobile
equipment changes or modifications are
made.
(c) The operator shall solicit input
from miners and their representatives in
developing and updating the written
safety program.
§ 57.23004
Record and inspection.
(a) The operator shall make the
written safety program available for
inspection by authorized representatives
of the Secretary and provide a copy
upon request.
(b) The operator shall make the
written safety program available for
inspection by miners and their
representatives and, at no cost, provide
a copy upon request.
SUBCHAPTER O—COAL MINE SAFETY
AND HEALTH
PART 77—MANDATORY SAFETY
STANDARDS, SURFACE COAL MINES
AND SURFACE WORK AREAS OF
UNDERGROUND COAL MINES
5. The authority citation for part 77
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811.
E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM
20DER1
87928
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
6. Add subpart V to part 77 to read as
follows:
■
Subpart V—Safety Program for Surface
Mobile Equipment
Sec.
77.2100 Purpose and scope.
77.2101 Definitions.
77.2102 Written safety program.
77.2103 Requirements for written safety
program.
77.2104 Record and inspection.
§ 77.2100
Purpose and scope.
This subpart requires operators to
develop, implement, and update a
written safety program for surface
mobile equipment to reduce the number
and rates of accidents, injuries, and
fatalities. This subpart applies to surface
mobile equipment at surface coal mines
and surface work areas of underground
coal mines. The purpose of this safety
program is to promote and support a
positive safety culture and improve
miners’ safety at the mine.
§ 77.2101
Definitions.
The following definitions apply in
this subpart—
Responsible person means a person
with authority and responsibility to
evaluate and update a written safety
program for surface mobile equipment.
Surface mobile equipment means
wheeled, skid-mounted, track-mounted,
or rail-mounted equipment capable of
moving or being moved, and any
powered equipment that transports
people, equipment, or materials,
excluding belt conveyors, at surface coal
mines and surface work areas of
underground coal mines.
§ 77.2102
Written safety program.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Requirements for written safety
(a) The operator shall develop and
implement a written safety program that
includes actions the operator will take
to:
(1) Identify and analyze hazards and
reduce the resulting risks related to the
movement and the operation of surface
mobile equipment;
(2) Develop and maintain procedures
and schedules for routine maintenance
and non-routine repairs for surface
mobile equipment;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Dec 19, 2023
Jkt 262001
§ 77.2104
Record and inspection.
(a) The operator shall make the
written safety program available for
inspection by authorized representatives
of the Secretary and provide a copy
upon request.
(b) The operator shall make the
written safety program available for
inspection by miners and their
representatives and, at no cost, provide
a copy upon request.
[FR Doc. 2023–27640 Filed 12–19–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4520–43–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Parts 3, 100, and 165
[Docket Number USCG–2023–0927]
(a) Each operator shall develop and
implement a written safety program for
surface mobile equipment that contains
the elements in this subpart, no later
than July 17, 2024.
(b) Each operator shall designate at
least one responsible person to evaluate
and update the written safety program,
no later than July 17, 2024.
§ 77.2103
program.
(3) Identify currently available and
newly emerging feasible technologies
that can enhance safety at the mine and
evaluate whether to adopt them; and
(4) Train miners and other persons at
the mine necessary to perform work to
identify and address or avoid hazards
related to surface mobile equipment.
(b) The responsible person shall
evaluate and update the written safety
program at least annually, or as mining
conditions or practices change that may
adversely affect the health and safety of
miners or other persons, as accidents or
injuries occur, or as surface mobile
equipment changes or modifications are
made.
(c) The operator shall solicit input
from miners and their representatives in
developing and updating the written
safety program.
RIN 1625–AA00
Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; Sector
Name Conforming Amendment
Coast Guard, Department of
Homeland Security.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This rule makes nonsubstantive changes to Coast Guard
regulations in association with a change
in the Coast Guard’s internal
organization. The purpose of this rule is
to reflect that U.S. Coast Guard Sector
Buffalo has been renamed U.S. Coast
Guard Sector Eastern Great Lakes. These
changes will have no substantive effect
on the regulated public.
DATES: This rule is effective December
20, 2023.
ADDRESSES: To view documents
mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2023–
0927 in the search box and click
‘‘Search.’’ Next, in the Document Type
column, select ‘‘Supporting & Related
Material.’’
If
you have questions on this rule, call or
email Lieutenant Commander Bo Ames,
Ninth Coast Guard District Legal Office,
U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 216–902–
6010, email Bo.J.Ames@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
I. Table of Abbreviations
AOR Area of responsibility
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
OCMI Officer in Charge of Marine
Inspections
OFCO Operating Facility Change Order
SAR Search and rescue
§ Section
U.S.C. United States Code
II. Background Information and
Regulatory History
For the last several years, the Coast
Guard has sought to better align the
names of its assets to correspond to the
area of responsibility which they serve.
Review of the missions and
engagements within the eastern Great
Lakes region highlighted that ‘‘Sector
Buffalo’’ alone did not adequately
capture the breadth and range of Coast
Guard operations and relationships
throughout the Eastern Great Lakes. The
Coast Guard has approved the name
change to U.S. Coast Guard Sector
Eastern Great Lakes in order to
acknowledge the long-standing
commitment to all communities
throughout the Eastern Great Lakes and
to reaffirm the multi-mission support
that the Coast Guard provides to ensure
safety at sea and enhanced maritime
governance.
The geographic boundaries of Sector
Eastern Great Lakes are not changing,
and its office is not moving from
Buffalo, New York.
We did not publish a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) before
this final rule. The Coast Guard finds
that this rule is exempt from notice and
comment rulemaking requirements
under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) because the
changes it makes are conforming
amendments involving agency
organization. The Coast Guard also finds
good cause exists under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B) for not publishing an NPRM
because the changes will have no
substantive effect on the public, and
notice and comment are therefore
unnecessary.
E:\FR\FM\20DER1.SGM
20DER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 20, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 87904-87928]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27640]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration
30 CFR Parts 56, 57, and 77
[Docket No. MSHA-2018-0016]
RIN 1219-AB91
Safety Program for Surface Mobile Equipment
AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), Department of
Labor.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA or the Agency)
is requiring that mine operators develop, implement, and update,
periodically or when necessary, a written safety program for surface
mobile equipment (excluding belt conveyors) at surface mines and
surface areas of underground mines. The written safety program must be
developed and updated with input from miners and their representatives.
The written safety program must include actions mine operators will
take to identify hazards and risks to reduce accidents, injuries, and
fatalities related to surface mobile equipment. The final rule offers
mine operators flexibility to devise a safety program that is
appropriate for their specific mining conditions and operations.
DATES:
Effective date: The final rule is effective January 19, 2024.
Compliance date: Compliance with this final rule is not required
until July 17, 2024
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: S. Aromie Noe, 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:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Section-by-Section Analysis
III. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review),
Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review), and 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)
IV. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA) and Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) and Executive Order
13272: Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking
V. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
VI. Other Regulatory Considerations
VII. References
I. Introduction
A. Regulatory Authority
This final rule is issued under section 101 of the Federal Mine
Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act), as amended. 30 U.S.C. 811.
B. Background
A variety of mining equipment is used at surface mines or in
surface areas of underground mines. Surface mining vehicles can be very
large (many can be several stories tall) and are capable of destroying
smaller vehicles that cannot be seen by the vehicle operators.
Accidents involving mining equipment are a leading cause of fatalities
at mines, although fatalities involving powered haulage equipment, a
type of mobile equipment, decreased in 2022.1 2 To reduce
the number of accidents, injuries and fatalities at mines, MSHA
implemented several powered haulage initiatives--for example,
conducting safety awareness campaigns, providing powered haulage
guidance and technical assistance, and disseminating training materials
and best-practices information that addresses powered haulage safety.
Despite these efforts, in 2023, machinery (mobile) accidents have still
accounted for a significant number of mining fatalities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Accidents at mines are classified by MSHA based on the
Agency's ``Accident Investigation Procedures Handbook,'' which
defines 21 categories of mine-related accidents. Most accidents
involving mining equipment are classified under one of two MSHA
accident categories--powered haulage accidents or machinery
accidents--depending on the type of equipment involved. For more
information, please see MSHA Accident Investigation Procedures
Handbook, December 2020, Appendix 7, Accident Classifications--
available at https:/arlweb.msha.gov/READROOM/HANDBOOK/PH20-I-4.pdf.
\2\ MSHA Fatality Reports, https://www.msha.gov/data-and-reports/fatality-reports/search?page=2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 20, 2021, for example, MSHA hosted a national ``Stand Down
for Safety Day'' to focus on powered haulage accidents and vehicle
rollovers to help educate miners, save lives, and prevent injuries.\3\
On that day, Mine Safety and Health Enforcement (MSHE) and Educational
Field and Small Mine Services (EFSMS) staff visited mines to meet with
miners and operators to increase awareness of powered haulage hazards
and the need to be familiar with and follow mine-safety best practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ More information on MSHA's ``Stand Down for Safety Day'' can
be found on MSHA's website at https://blog.dol.gov/2021/07/14/stop-powered-haulage-accidents-stay-alert-stay-alive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 28, 2022, MSHA announced its ``Take Time, Save Lives''
campaign to remind mine operators to train miners and ensure miners can
take their time to prevent accidents and injuries and to save lives.\4\
As part of the campaign, mines across the country received a poster to
display at mine sites with steps operators and miners can take to stay
safe, including actions related to working around powered haulage
equipment and wearing seat belts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ More information on MSHA's ``Take Time, Save Lives''
campaign can be found on MSHA's website at https://www.msha.gov/take-time-save-lives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, over the years, MSHA has developed a wide variety of
mine safety and health materials and has made them available on the
Agency's website (https://www.msha.gov) and mobile app.\5\ These
materials are intended to assist trainers and mine operators in
promoting a safe and healthy environment, and among other topics, they
cover safety topics related to mobile equipment at surface mines. For
example, MSHA issued Powered Haulage Equipment Guidance in 2021
intended to help prevent accidents associated with working with, on, or
[[Page 87905]]
near powered haulage equipment.\6\ MSHA also launched an enforcement
initiative focused on powered haulage by issuing guidance on preventing
accidents and meeting with mine personnel to emphasize best safety
practices and training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ MSHA's Miner Safety & Health App gives miners and mine
operators instant access to information that can help keep them safe
and healthy on the job. The app provides important safety alerts,
safety and health best practices that apply to their daily work,
information on their rights and responsibilities, and the ability to
contact MSHA with a question or to report an accident or hazard. The
app is available for free on Android and iPhone mobile devices and
can also be found at the respective app stores by searching for
``Miner Safety & Health.'' More information can be found on MSHA's
website at https://www.msha.gov/miner-safety-health-application.
\6\ More information on MSHA's Powered Haulage Safety Initiative
can be found on MSHA's website at https://www.msha.gov/safety-and-health/safety-and-health-initiatives/powered-haulage-safety. MSHA's
guidance on mitigating and preventing powered haulage equipment
accidents, entitled ``Powered Haulage Equipment Safety Guidance,''
can be found on MSHA's website at https://www.msha.gov/sites/default/files/events/Powered%20Haulage%20Guidance.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2022, to complement the Agency's awareness initiatives,
the Agency implemented an Enhanced Enforcement Program to help improve
safety and health in the mining industry. As a part of MSHA's regular
inspections, this program focuses on task training and hazard training
for customer and contract truck drivers and task training for managers
and supervisors who perform mining tasks. For example, MSHA inspectors
will observe truck drivers and focus on enforcing existing standards
necessary to ensure that they perform tasks in a safe manner at mines.
C. Rulemaking History
As part of its overall effort to improve safety in the use of
mining equipment, MSHA published a request for information (RFI) on
June 26, 2018, entitled Safety Improvement Technologies for Mobile
Equipment at Surface Mines, and for Belt Conveyors at Surface and
Underground Mines (83 FR 29716). The RFI focused on technologies for
reducing accidents involving mobile equipment at surface mines and
surface areas of underground mines and belt conveyors at surface and
underground mines. The RFI requested information on what types of
engineering controls are available, how to implement engineering
controls, and how these controls could be used on mobile equipment and
belt conveyors to reduce accidents, fatalities, and injuries. MSHA
sought information on technologies, controls, and training that provide
additional protection from accidents related to mobile equipment
operation and working near or around belt conveyors.
To encourage additional public participation, the Agency held six
stakeholder meetings and one webinar in August and September 2018. The
meetings were held in Birmingham, Alabama; Dallas, Texas; Reno, Nevada;
Beckley, West Virginia; Albany, New York; and Arlington, Virginia.
Commenters responding to the RFI supported MSHA's focused efforts
to improve miner safety related to the operation of mobile equipment at
surface mines and in surface areas of underground mines. Some
emphasized the use of technologies to achieve this goal, such as the
use of new technologies and the use of current technologies (e.g.,
collision avoidance systems, collision warning systems, and seat belt
warning signals used in automobiles). Others supported the importance
of non-technological interventions, such as safety programs, to bring
about behavioral and cultural changes. Commenters differed in how
technological and non-technological interventions should be
implemented. Some commenters noted that the application of engineering
controls or technologies needs further review by MSHA and the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) before any
regulatory changes are made. Other commenters suggested that the use of
new technologies has the best outcomes when mine operators and their
employees partner with other stakeholders such as NIOSH and equipment
manufacturers.
In addition, one commenter underscored the importance of safety
culture at a workplace. This commenter observed that mine operators who
develop and implement safety programs do so with the goal of preventing
injuries, fatalities, and the suffering these accidents cause miners,
their families, and their communities. The commenter noted that for
these mine operators, preventing harm to their miners is more than just
compliance with safety requirements; it reflects a culture of safety.
According to the commenter, this culture of safety derives from a
commitment to a systematic, effective, and comprehensive approach to
safety management at mines with the full participation of miners.
On September 9, 2021, MSHA published the proposed rule, Safety
Program for Surface Mobile Equipment (86 FR 50496). In addition to
information gathered from stakeholders who commented on the RFI, MSHA
based the proposed rule on best practices and guidance on workplace
safety programs.\7\ The comment period closed on November 8, 2021. On
December 20, 2021, in response to a public request, MSHA reopened the
rulemaking record for additional comments, and the Agency held a
virtual public hearing on the proposed rule on January 11, 2022 (86 FR
71860). The comment period closed on February 11, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ As part of the proposed rule, MSHA reviewed safety program
guidance materials from several types of organizations: (1)
consensus standards organizations (e.g., American Society of Safety
Professionals (ASSP), Occupational Health and Safety Management
Systems, ANSI/ASSP Z10-2012 (R2017); and the International Standards
Organization (ISO), Occupational Health and Safety Management
Systems--Requirements With Guidance for Use (ISO 45001:2018)); (2)
industry organizations (e.g., the National Mining Association's
CORESafety and Health Management System); and (3) government
agencies (e.g., the Department of Transportation, 49 CFR part 270).
The Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) also has developed recommended practices for
developing safety and health programs (https://www.osha.gov/shpguidelines/). 86 FR 50498.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSHA's proposed rule addresses hazards related to surface mobile
equipment (except belt conveyors) used at surface mines and surface
areas of underground mines. Surface mobile equipment in the proposed
rule refers to wheeled, skid-mounted, track-mounted, or rail mounted
equipment capable of moving or being moved and any powered equipment
that transports people, equipment, or materials, excluding belt
conveyors, at surface mines and surface areas of underground mines.
Examples of this equipment include bulldozers, front-end loaders, skid
steers, excavators, draglines, graders, and haul trucks.
The proposed rule would require a written safety program for
operators employing six or more miners. The proposed written safety
program would list actions that mine operators would take to identify
hazards and reduce risks, develop equipment maintenance and repair
schedules, evaluate technologies, and train miners. The proposal would
provide mine operators with the flexibility to tailor the written
safety program to meet the needs of their operations and unique mining
conditions. Under the proposal, mine operators would be required to
evaluate and update the written safety program whenever necessary to
appropriately manage safety risks associated with their surface mobile
equipment.
MSHA received comments on the proposed rule from miners, safety
associations, mining associations, mining companies, manufacturers,
labor unions, and trade associations. (Public comments and supporting
documentation submitted were posted on MSHA's website and at
www.regulations.gov, along with the transcript from the public
hearing.) Commenters supported MSHA's efforts to ensure the safety of
all miners from powered haulage accidents. After considering the
comments, for the reasons discussed further below, MSHA
[[Page 87906]]
is adopting the proposed rule with modifications. MSHA has addressed
comments more fully in the next section, Section II, Section-by-Section
Analysis, of this preamble.
II. Section-by-Section Analysis
A. Sections 56.23000, 57.23000, and 77.2100--Purpose and Scope
Final Sec. Sec. 56.23000, 57.23000, and 77.2100 address the
purpose and scope of the final rule. Like the proposal, final
Sec. Sec. 56.23000, 57.23000, and 77.2100 state that the purpose of
the safety program is to reduce the accidents, injuries, and fatalities
related to the operation of surface mobile equipment, promote and
support a positive safety culture, and improve miners' safety at the
mine. Unlike the proposal, all mine operators are required to develop,
implement, and update a written safety program for surface mobile
equipment used at surface mines and surface areas of underground mines.
The final rule is changed from the proposal to cover operators with
five or fewer miners. After reviewing comments and data, the Agency
determined that operators of these mines need to develop a written
safety program to address surface mobile equipment at their operations
to protect their miners. MSHA intends to provide compliance assistance
where necessary.
1. Mines Covered by the Proposal--Mines Employing 6 or More Miners
In the proposal, Sec. Sec. 56.23000, 57.23000, and 77.2100 would
require mine operators with six or more miners to develop a written
safety program. In the proposed rule, MSHA also requested comment on
potentially requiring mines with five or fewer miners to develop a
written safety program. Safety Program: Surface Mobile Equipment, 86 FR
50,496, 50,500 (Sept. 9, 2021).
Commenters stated that all mine operators, regardless of the number
of miners employed, should be required to have a written safety program
and that miners at small operations need the same protections as miners
at larger operations. Several commenters stated that, regardless of
whether a facility employs one miner or one hundred miners, each
individual should be protected equally. One commenter stated that even
though data may indicate that serious accidents occur less frequently
at smaller operations, all miners and operations should still be
covered because the hazards involving surface mobile equipment pose a
risk for all miners. Several commenters stated that applying the rule
to all mines, regardless of the number of miners employed, will
minimize confusion, enhance safety practices, and increase consistency
across mines and throughout MSHA enforcement. One commenter stated that
the Mine Act does not set a threshold for how many miners must be
employed at a mine in order for it to be subject to a standard, and as
such, operators with five or fewer miners should not be excluded.
Several commenters supported MSHA's goal to minimize the burden on
small operations, but they did not believe that a mobile equipment
safety program will present an undue economic burden on operators with
five or fewer miners if MSHA provides clear guidance regarding what is
expected.
In response to comments, MSHA reviewed recent data from 2011 to
2020 on fatalities and injuries and accident investigation reports.
Based on that review, MSHA determined that the fatality rate for mines
with five or fewer miners is greater than that for larger mines. MSHA
found that from 2011 to 2020, the average fatality rates (or fatal
incidence rate) per 200,000 working hours were as follows: 0.0227 at
mines with 5 or fewer employees; 0.0167 at mines with 6 to 20
employees; 0.0103 at mines with 21 to 100 employees, and 0.0079 at
mines with more than 100 employees. See Table II-1.
Table II-1--Fatality Rates (or Fatal Incidence Rates), 2011-2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mine size (based on all mine employees)
----------------------------------------------------
5 or fewer 6 to 20 21 to 100 101 or more
employees employees employees employees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatalities at Surface Mines and Surface Areas of 25 65 47 44
Underground Mines (10-year total) \1\.....................
Hours worked at Surface Mines and Surface Areas of 220.5 776.9 912.6 1,110.6
Underground Mines (10-year total in millions) \2\.........
Fatal Incidence Rate (or Fatality Rate) per 200,000 Working 0.0227 0.0167 0.0103 0.0079
hours \3\.................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes fatalities of miners (including contract miners and office workers) that occurred at surface mines
and at surface areas of underground mines.
\2\ Includes hours worked by miners (excluding contract miners) at surface mines and at surface areas of
underground mines. Does not include hours worked at facilities.
\3\ (Number of Fatalities x 200,000)/Hours Worked = Fatality Rate.
Note: Table excludes fatalities and work hours reported at facilities.
Based on the analysis and comments, the final rule requires a
written safety program for all mines. MSHA agrees with comments that
the Mine Act requires that miners' safety and health must be protected
no matter how many employees work at the mine. The Agency concludes
that applying the final rule to all mines will provide improved safety
for all miners.
MSHA will provide compliance assistance through the Agency's EFSMS
staff to all mines. MSHA will also encourage state grantees to focus on
providing training to address hazards and risks involving surface
mobile equipment in small mining operations. In addition, MSHA will
provide assistance to small mine operators in the form of additional
training materials, education, technical assistance, and work with
mining industry stakeholders as it develops materials and templates to
assist mine operators. Also, MSHA is implementing a 6-month delayed
compliance date from the effective date to provide mine operators,
especially small mine operators, sufficient time to identify and
acquire, if necessary, the needed resources to comply with this final
rule.
2. Belt Conveyors
The proposed rule did not include belt conveyors in the definition
of surface mobile equipment. MSHA received comments on whether to
include or exclude belt conveyors from the definition of surface mobile
equipment and whether belt conveyors should be covered under this rule.
Some commenters stated that belt conveyors should be included in the
scope of the rule and that a written safety program
[[Page 87907]]
should be developed and implemented to include them. One commenter
reviewed accident and injury data and stated that many fatalities are
associated with belt conveyers. Several commenters stated that
technologies and controls exist that can help prevent accidents, for
example: devices that can sense a miner's presence in hazardous
locations, properly installed machine guards, and properly locked-out
and tagged-out machines undergoing maintenance. According to these
commenters, MSHA should require a written safety program for belt
conveyors just as it is requiring one for mobile and powered haulage
equipment.
Several commenters agreed with MSHA's exclusion of belt conveyors
from the proposed rule. The commenters stated that belt conveyors
should be addressed separately from powered haulage vehicles because
they are very different types of equipment and keeping them separate
would increase clarity.
Based on the comments, the final rule, like the proposal, excludes
belt conveyors from the definition of surface mobile equipment. Belt
conveyors present different safety hazards from those associated with
surface mobile equipment. Belt conveyors range from a single belt to a
series of belts spanning miles. All conveyor systems have inherent
dangers while in motion. Belt conveyor accidents predominantly involve
entanglements in equipment whereas accidents related to other mobile
equipment involve striking, colliding, falling, or overtravel while the
equipment is in operation. MSHA continues to believe that the safety
issues surrounding the operation of belt conveyors can be better
addressed through existing standards (e.g., Sec. Sec. 56/57.14107 and
56/57.14112 for moving machine parts and construction and maintenance
of guards), best practices, and training. As MSHA does with many other
types of mining equipment, the Agency provides training resources to
help operators and miners that include best practices for working
safely around conveyor systems. These best practices are available on
the Agency's website at https://www.msha.gov.
3. Underground Areas of Underground Mines
MSHA proposed to require a written safety program for surface
mobile equipment at surface mines and surface areas of underground
mines. Several commenters stated that all areas of underground mines--
meaning both surface and underground areas of underground mines--should
be included in the scope of the proposed rule. Commenters stated that
powered haulage accidents happen in underground areas of underground
mines, not just surface areas. This observation, a commenter pointed
out, is based on MSHA accident data. One commenter stated that
underground mining equipment should be expressly excluded from the
proposed rule even if the equipment is operated on surface areas.
Like the proposal, the final rule applies to surface mobile
equipment used at surface mines as well as surface areas of underground
mines. Surface mobile equipment being used in underground mines and
only brought to the surface for maintenance or repair, for example, is
not included in the scope of the final rule.
A large amount of surface mobile equipment operates at many surface
mines and surface areas of underground mines, which creates common
hazards such as striking, collision, and falling. Surface mobile
equipment tends to be complex and large in size (compared to mobile
equipment used at underground mines), which generates some unique
hazards, such as large blind spots for equipment operators. The final
rule applies only to surface mobile equipment.
As is the Agency's practice, MSHA will continue to work with
operators and miners in underground mines to deliver training and best
practice materials to prevent accidents involving mobile equipment in
underground areas and to provide safety protections for miners at these
mines.
B. Sections 56.23001, 57.23001, and 77.2101--Definitions
Final Sec. Sec. 56.23001, 57.23001, and 77.2101 continue to define
the terms responsible person and surface mobile equipment in the same
way as defined in the proposed rule.
MSHA proposed to define a responsible person as a person with
authority and responsibility to evaluate and update a written safety
program for surface mobile equipment. MSHA believes that designating a
person with authority and responsibility to evaluate and update the
safety program as necessary will help ensure the successful development
and maintenance of a safety program that addresses and reduces the
likelihood of surface mobile equipment hazards at a particular mine.
This individual should be able to communicate the operator's commitment
to safety and the importance of miners' involvement in the program to
prevent or mitigate hazards. The responsible person must communicate
the goals of the safety program to all miners. The responsible person
will need to have the experience and knowledge about mining conditions,
including surface mobile equipment, necessary to evaluate and update
the written safety program.
MSHA received comments on this definition. Commenters indicated a
preference for removing or redefining the term. Some commenters stated
that the definition is redundant and should be deleted, and that
operators are already required to designate a responsible person for
health and safety purposes. Several commenters discussed the
similarities between the responsibilities and liability burdens of the
mine operator, as compared to the proposed definition of a responsible
person. One commenter stated that the definition should be deleted as
it serves no purpose.
Other commenters brought up the feasibility of assigning the duties
to a single individual. For example, one commenter stated its view that
the proposed rule would require a person that has the knowledge to
identify hazards on every piece of mobile equipment, the authority to
make high-level financial decisions, and the responsibility for any
shortfalls in the program. Still other commenters questioned the
consequences of assigning the title of ``responsible person'' to a
single individual because that individual could become temporarily or
permanently unavailable. One commenter stated that MSHA should amend
this language to clearly allow for multiple persons to be designated as
a responsible person. In the commenter's view, there are many practical
reasons to have additional people in this position. For example, if one
designee is out sick, on vacation, or leaves the company, there would
still be a designated responsible person on-site.
In response to the comments, the final rule requires that each
operator designate at least one responsible person to evaluate and
update the written safety program. Under the final rule, the operator
can designate one person or multiple persons so long as the designated
persons have the authority and responsibility to evaluate and update
the written safety program.
In addition, the final rule, like the proposed rule, defines
surface mobile equipment as wheeled, skid-mounted, track-mounted, or
rail-mounted equipment capable of moving or being moved, and any
powered equipment that transports people, equipment, or materials,
excluding belt conveyors, at surface mines and surface areas of
underground mines. This definition is
[[Page 87908]]
adapted from the current definition in 30 CFR 56.2 and 57.2 for metal
and nonmetal mines: mobile equipment means ``wheeled, skid-mounted,
track-mounted, or rail-mounted equipment capable of moving or being
moved.''
MSHA received comments on the proposed definition of surface mobile
equipment. Several commenters requested that MSHA clarify the type of
equipment that would meet the proposed definition. One commenter stated
that equipment such as push carts, welding carts, cylinder carts, and
basic hand trucks would be subject to the proposed rule. The commenter
stated that the rationale to include this type of equipment under the
definition is unclear. Another commenter stated that certain skid-
mounted equipment such as light towers and substations could be covered
unintentionally. Another commenter stated that it is unclear whether
small boats, portable crushers, dredges, etc., are included.
Several commenters requested further clarification from MSHA on the
types of equipment to be included in the definition. Commenters
requested that MSHA provide a finite list of equipment that would be
included or exempted from the rule. One commenter suggested that MSHA
create a supplementary, clarifying guidance document.
After reviewing all the comments, MSHA concludes that the
definition in this final rule is sufficiently clear about what types of
surface mobile equipment are subject to a written safety program.
Surface mobile equipment excludes any manually powered tools, such as
wheelbarrows, hand carts, push carts, welding carts, cylinder carts,
basic hand trucks, or dollies for the purposes of this written safety
program. This definition is consistent with the currently enforced
definition in 30 CFR parts 56 and 57.
C. Sections 56.23002, 57.23002, and 77.2102--Written Safety Program
Final Sec. Sec. 56.23002(a), 57.23002(a), and 77.2102(a), like the
proposal, require each mine operator to develop and implement a written
safety program no later than 6 months after the effective date of the
final rule. Three issues raised by commenters are discussed below.
1. Independent Contractors
Commenters stated that the proposed rule is unclear as to whether
or not contractors are subject to the requirements. Some commenters
stated that the proposed rule is silent on whether it covers contractor
equipment and how such coverage would be implemented in a practical
sense, and one commenter said that this silence would lead to
enforcement actions against the mine and/or contractors for
inconsistencies in how they would comply with the proposed
requirements. Several commenters stated that MSHA should clarify how
contractor programs should be integrated with operators' on-site safety
programs.
Commenters requested that MSHA clarify that contractors are
considered operators, and thus would need to have their own written
safety program. Several commenters stated that the definition of
``operator'' in section 3(d) of the Mine Act includes ``any independent
contractor performing services or construction'' at a mine. 30 U.S.C.
802(d). Several commenters stated that MSHA's regulations at 30 CFR
part 45, which sets forth procedural requirements for independent
contractors working at mine sites, state that such requirements exist
``to facilitate implementation of MSHA's enforcement policy of holding
independent contractors responsible for violations committed by them
and their employees.''
Several commenters stated that it would be untenable to require
production operators to account for contractor equipment in their own
safety programs. According to the commenters, contractors often have
their own equipment and specialized knowledge, so that it would be
impractical to require the operator to be responsible for the
contractors' equipment.
MSHA's intent in the proposed rule was that an operator would mean
``any owner, lessee, or other person who operates, controls, or
supervises a coal or other mine or any independent contractor
performing services or construction at such mine'' as stated in section
3(d) of the Mine Act. To facilitate implementation of MSHA's
enforcement policy with respect to certain independent contractors,
MSHA published regulations in 30 CFR part 45 related to the
responsibility of independent contractors that met the requirements of
part 45.
Consistent with MSHA's part 45 regulations and the Agency's
longstanding policy regarding independent contractors, this final rule
requires operators, including contractors with a part 45 identification
number, to develop and implement a written safety program addressing
surface mobile equipment. MSHA has a long history and practice of
enforcing its standards and regulations against operators and
independent contractors and believes that the industry is familiar with
and understands this history and practice. Under this final rule, MSHA
will treat operators and part 45 independent contractors consistent
with the definition in the Mine Act and the Agency's longstanding
history and practice.
MSHA expects that a majority of the Part 45 independent contractors
will develop and implement their own written safety programs addressing
their surface mobile equipment and follow the site-specific
requirements, as necessary, in the operators' written safety programs.
In some situations, operators may choose to integrate the independent
contractors' written safety programs into their programs. No matter
what approach is used, MSHA expects that, in all cases, operators and
independent contractors will communicate and coordinate with each
other, as appropriate, to ensure that miners' safety and health is
protected.
Final Sec. Sec. 56.23002(b), 57.23002(b), and 77.2102(b), similar
to the proposal, require each mine operator, within 6 months after the
effective date of the final rule, to designate at least one responsible
person to evaluate and update the written safety program. As discussed
in the definition section, a responsible person is a person with
authority and responsibility to evaluate and update a written safety
program for surface mobile equipment.
2. Compliance Date
The final rule implements a 6-month delayed compliance date from
the effective date. Commenters provided varying suggestions on the
proposed effective date. Some commenters suggested that all mine
operators should have an additional 6 to 12 months without receiving
citations relating to this rule, for a total of up to 18 months delayed
effective date. Another commenter suggested a longer time period for
only those mines that meet the Small Business Administration's size
standards; therefore, a 6-month delay (as proposed) for larger entities
and up to an 18-month delay for smaller entities. Some commenters
agreed with MSHA's proposal that 6 months from the effective date of
the final rule is sufficient time for operators to develop a written
safety program.
The final rule includes a delayed compliance date to allow for
development and implementation of the written safety program for
surface mobile equipment. After considering comments and reviewing data
on accidents, injuries, and fatalities involving surface mobile
equipment, MSHA determined that 6 months is a reasonable timeframe for
the development and implementation of the safety program for all mines,
regardless
[[Page 87909]]
of size. MSHA believes that the 6-month time frame gives operators
sufficient time to develop a meaningful written safety program, with
input from miners and their representatives. MSHA has offered and will
continue to offer materials and information that operators can use in
developing and implementing a written safety program. MSHA will also
work with operators, miners, and their representatives as well as other
stakeholders in the mining industry (e.g., contractors) to develop
written safety program templates, as well as best practices and
guidance on the development, implementation, and evaluation of safety
programs.
3. Approval of the Written Safety Program
The proposed rule did not require MSHA approval of the operator's
written safety program. Commenters provided their views on whether MSHA
should require its approval of operators' written safety programs.
Several commenters stated that MSHA's approval of the written safety
program is necessary, and that not requiring MSHA approval would lead
to inconsistent enforcement by MSHA inspectors. One commenter stated
that approval by MSHA should be required because the written safety
programs that are developed without MSHA's oversight or approval would
be, in the commenter's view, based on the operator's convenience, not
the miners' health and safety. One commenter stated that MSHA approval
of the operator's program is needed before it is implemented to ensure
the adequacy of the individual, site-specific program and to ensure
that mine operators have the opportunity to be alerted to any possible
deficiencies in their program prior to MSHA approval. One commenter
stated that MSHA already approves a number of written programs and
plans submitted by mine operators, such as roof control plans, ground
control plans, and ventilation plans. The commenter further stated that
without MSHA oversight, mine operators will have generic programs that
will not be mine-specific or include meaningful participation from
miners and their representatives.
Other commenters supported MSHA's proposal that required no Agency
approval of written safety programs. One commenter stated that they
appreciate MSHA proposing to require a written safety program without
the Agency's approval, rather than with the Agency's approval. Another
commenter agreed that not requiring approval is a wise decision because
it would be burdensome for MSHA to approve tens of thousands of
programs.
After considering all comments, MSHA has determined that an
operator's written safety program will be appropriately reviewed by
MSHA during regular inspections. During the inspection, MSHA will
review the written safety program to determine if it reflects actions
that identify and address surface mobile equipment hazards at mine
sites and to verify whether input from miners and their representatives
was sought. This approach will also allow the Agency to ensure that the
written safety program addresses hazards identified by mine operators
and miners. MSHA will also determine whether the written safety program
is adequately evaluated and updated. In light of the Agency's
inspection presence, MSHA has determined that Agency approval of the
written safety program is not needed.
D. Sections 56.23003, 57.23003, and 77.2103--Requirements for Written
Safety Program
Like the proposal, final Sec. Sec. 56.23003(a), 57.23003(a), and
77.2103(a) list general, performance-based requirements for the written
safety program. Under this final rule, an operator's safety program
must include four types of actions the operators will take to reduce
accidents, injuries, and fatalities and to improve miners' safety. As
discussed earlier, this and other provisions in the final rule, unlike
the proposed rule, clarify the term ``operator'' or ``operators,'' to
be consistent with section 3(d) of the Mine Act.
Several commenters stated that the written safety program
requirement is redundant with provisions already required in the CFR
and does not provide a new or strategic focus that advances mobile
equipment safety. These commenters stated that there are existing
regulations in part 56 that require mine operators to identify and
correct hazards in all work areas and for all equipment, including
surface mobile equipment, such as Sec. 56.18002 on the examination of
working places and Sec. 56.14100 on safety defects; examination; and
correction of records. One commenter stated that the requirements of
this section are redundant with the training requirements already set
forth in part 46, and another commenter stated these requirements are
redundant with training requirements already set forth in part 48. One
commenter requested clarification on the specifics of the documentation
requirement for the review and collection of this information. For
example, what type of information would meet the requirement, how
should it be maintained, for how long would it need to be kept, and how
would MSHA evaluate it for compliance? Another commenter also requested
additional guidance on the types of safety hazards that should be
included. One commenter asked how this requirement could be enforced.
Finally, one commenter fully supported the inclusion of this
requirement.
After reviewing comments and relevant information, MSHA believes
that structuring the final rule to include a performance-based
requirement to identify and analyze hazards is more appropriate than a
prescriptive requirement. The performance-based approach in the final
rule allows operators the flexibility to devise and tailor a safety
program that is appropriate for their specific and unique mining
conditions and operations. These actions could include review of
accident data and information on near misses and any operational or
maintenance accidents at their mines. For example, under 30 CFR part
50, mine operators are already required to submit a report of each
accident, injury, and illness to MSHA within 10 working days after an
accident or occupational injury occurs or an occupational illness is
diagnosed. Based on such information and data, mine operators will be
able to develop a program that more specifically addresses conditions
at their mines; mining equipment, work locations, and tasks at their
mine site; and measures to eliminate, prevent, or mitigate identified
hazards. Regarding the comment asking how this information should be
maintained and for how long it would need to be kept, further
discussion of records and inspection requirements is located elsewhere
in this preamble under Sec. Sec. 56.23004, 57.23004, and 77.2104.
1. Sections 56.23003(a)(1), 57.23003(a)(1), and 77.2103(a)(1)
Final Sec. Sec. 56.23003(a)(1), 57.23003(a)(1), and 77.2103(a)(1),
like the proposal, require that the written safety program include
actions the operator will take to identify and analyze hazards and
reduce the resulting risks related to the movement and operation of
surface mobile equipment. Operators are required to identify and
analyze hazards relevant to surface mobile equipment and to take
actions to reduce the site-specific risks so that their written safety
programs can be tailored to their unique mining operations and
conditions. Actions that mine operators may take include
[[Page 87910]]
enhanced administrative controls such as increased use of signage and
procedural changes to tasks that remediate identified hazards. Other
actions may include visibility studies to identify inherent blind spot
areas around mobile equipment and use of visibility enhancing devices
such as flags and additional mirrors to minimize these areas. Mine
operators may choose to change traffic patterns, implement dispatchers
for certain areas of a mine, and limit or prohibit small vehicular or
foot traffic in identified high risk areas.
2. Sections 56.23003(a)(2), 57.23003(a)(2), and 77.2103(a)(2)
Final Sec. Sec. 56.23003(a)(2), 57.23003(a)(2), and 77.2103(a)(2),
like the proposal, require that the written safety program include
actions the operator will take to develop and maintain procedures and
schedules for routine maintenance and non-routine repairs for surface
mobile equipment.
Commenters stated that this requirement is redundant when compared
to existing part 56 and part 57 regulations. Likewise, another
commenter stated that Sec. 77.404 already addresses the requirements
that mobile and stationary machinery and equipment be maintained in
safe operating conditions. Another commenter stated that Sec. Sec.
77.1600-77.1607 includes extensive rules that address loading and
haulage, including traffic controls, transportation of persons, berms,
inspection and maintenance, and operation.
Another commenter expressed a concern about the ambiguity of the
requirement, stating that inspectors may be subjective and issue
violations for failure to follow manufacturers' recommendations.
Several commenters stated that operators should have additional
flexibility when it comes to manufacturers' recommendations. In these
commenters' view, manufacturers' recommendations for maintenance and
repairs are often not reflective of how the equipment is used at a
given operation. A commenter noted that recommendations from the
manufacturer are a valuable resource for equipment operators and
maintenance personnel, but often are designed to avoid legal challenges
rather than maximize safe operation. One commenter requested that this
requirement for maintenance and repairs apply to the safe operation of
the equipment, rather than all maintenance and repairs in general.
Another commenter stated that MSHA should make clear that this section
does not require any new maintenance or repair procedures, but requires
only that the facility's procedures be reflected (or referenced) in a
written program.
Under the final rule, MSHA does not intend for operators to develop
new maintenance and repair procedures, unless operators do not have
these in place already. Operators may decide to modify existing
maintenance and repair procedures based upon newly conducted risk
assessment findings. The procedures and schedules for maintenance and
repairs for surface mobile equipment developed for the written safety
program can reflect or reference the operator's existing procedures and
schedules.
3. Sections 56.23003(a)(3), 57.23003(a)(3), and 77.2103(a)(3)
Final Sec. Sec. 56.23003(a)(3), 57.23003(a)(3), and 77.2103(a)(3),
like the proposed rule, require that the written safety program include
actions the mine operator will take to identify currently available and
newly emerging feasible technologies that can enhance safety and
evaluate whether to adopt them. Examples of these technologies could
include seat belt interlocks that affect equipment operation when a
seat belt is not fastened; seatbelt notification systems that alert
management when the seatbelts are not worn; collision warning systems
and collision avoidance systems that may prevent accidents by alerting
equipment operators to hazards located in blind areas; technologies
that use Global Positioning Systems to provide equipment operators with
information regarding their location when pushing and dumping material;
as well as cameras, curvilinear mirrors, and other vision enhancements
(86 FR 50500).
Commenters stated that this requirement is ambiguous, burdensome,
and redundant, and should be stricken from the rule. Several commenters
stated that: the proposal does not appear to require mine operators to
implement newly emerging technologies, and, instead, it appears to
require evaluations. They further stated that most mine operators
likely already evaluate newly emerging technologies to save money and
improve safety. Some commenters were concerned that certain terminology
in the proposal is subjective. For example, commenters stated that MSHA
needs to elaborate on what types of actions operators should take to
``evaluate'' how ``newly emerging feasible technologies'' would
``enhance'' safety. Other commenters stated that there are many areas
of concern related to testing and implementing new technologies into
existing equipment, potentially creating safety hazards. Another
commenter stated that new technologies often have problems when they
are initially developed. For example, the commenter noted that when
airbags were first released there were issues causing injuries, and
thus they had to be redesigned. Another commenter stated that MSHA
should make clear that the rule does not require the adoption of any
particular technology but is strictly a requirement that the operator
have a procedure to identify and evaluate potentially useful new
technology.
After considering all comments, the final rule is unchanged from
the proposal, and it requires that the operator identify and evaluate
currently available and newly emerging feasible technologies that can
enhance safety at the mines. MSHA's intent is that operators consider
feasible technologies that are capable of being used successfully at
that mine. MSHA recognizes the safety benefits of new and emerging
technologies related to surface mobile equipment. MSHA believes that
operators can typically determine what types of new or existing
technologies that they need to enhance safety at their operations. MSHA
will offer educational assistance on currently available and newly
emerging technologies in a number of ways, including through EFSMS,
industry stakeholders, quarterly stakeholder calls and stakeholder
meetings, safety and health training workshops (e.g., Training
Resources Applied to Mining (TRAM) and Spring Thaw Training Workshops),
guidance documents, and Agency website and mobile app resources. Also,
as part of the Agency's compliance assistance efforts, MSHA will work
with operators and provide information and technical assistance that
will help them identify control options and the use of new technologies
to prevent accidents and injuries. MSHA will also encourage its state
grantees to focus on providing training to address feasible
technologies involving surface mobile equipment in mining operations.
4. Sections 56.23003(a)(4), 57.23003(a)(4), and 77.2103(a)(4)
Final Sec. Sec. 56.23003(a)(4), 57.23003(a)(4), and 77.2103(a)(4),
like the proposal, require that the written safety program include
actions the operator will take to train miners and other persons at the
mine necessary to perform work to identify and address or avoid hazards
related to surface mobile equipment.
Several commenters stated that they already comply with part 46
requirements and that this section is another example of regulatory
[[Page 87911]]
redundancy and does not provide a new or strategic focus to advance
mobile equipment safety. One commenter suggested that MSHA make clear
that the mobile equipment program can refer to other sections of
regulations relating to mobile equipment and can incorporate these by
reference, for example Sec. Sec. 46.5(b)(2), 46.6(b)(2), and 46.8(c).
Another commenter requested that the Agency disambiguate the language,
``other persons at the mine necessary to perform work,'' by providing
more precise language. Otherwise, for training purposes, the language
effectively would expand the definition of ``miner'' to all employees.
After reviewing the comments, MSHA clarifies that mine operators
will only need to integrate existing training provisions, as
applicable, into the written safety program. The Agency previously
described the intended audience for site-specific hazard awareness
training in the final rule for Training and Retraining of Miners
Engaged in Shell Dredging or Employed at Sand, Gravel, Surface Stone,
Surface Clay, Colloidal Phosphate, or Surface Limestone Mines (64 FR
53080, September 30, 1999). In that final rule, MSHA required that ``.
. . hazard awareness training be appropriate for the individual who is
receiving it and that the breadth and depth of training vary depending
on the skills, background, and job duties of the recipient. For
example, it may be appropriate to provide hazard awareness training to
customer truck drivers by handing out a card to the drivers alerting
them to the mine hazards or directing them away from certain areas of
the mine site. More extensive hazard awareness training might be needed
for an equipment manufacturer's representative who comes onto mine
property to service or inspect a piece of mining equipment. Although
this individual may not be on mine property for an extended period, the
person's exposure to mine hazards may warrant more training.
Appropriate hazard awareness training would typically be more
comprehensive for contractor employees who fit the definition of
`miner' because they are engaged in mining operations. These employees
receive comprehensive training but also need orientation to the mine
site and information on the mining operations and mine hazards.'' (64
FR 53128) Similarly, under this final rule, the written safety program
must include the actions that the mine operator will take to train
miners and other persons at the mine necessary to perform work to
identify and address or avoid hazards related to surface mobile
equipment.
Under the final rule, mine operators will need to integrate their
existing training procedures for miners and other persons at the mine
necessary to perform work into their written safety program to address
and avoid hazards related to surface mobile equipment.
5. Sections 56.23003(b), 57.23003(b), and 77.2103(b)
Final Sec. Sec. 56.23003(b), 57.23003(b), and 77.2103(b), similar
to the proposal, require the responsible person to evaluate and update
the written safety program for the mine at least annually, or as mining
conditions or practices change that may adversely affect the health and
safety of miners or other persons, as accidents or injuries occur, or
as surface mobile equipment changes or modifications are made. The
final rule is clarified in two ways. First, the written program must be
evaluated and updated ``at least'' annually. This clarification
indicates that an annual evaluation and update is the minimum, and more
frequent evaluations and updates of the written safety program must be
done, if necessary. Second, the final rule specifies that the
evaluation and update must be done when changes in the mining
conditions or practices ``may adversely affect the health and safety of
miners or other persons.'' MSHA acknowledges that not all changes to
mining conditions or practices warrant updates to the written safety
program. This is similar to MSHA's existing requirements in Sec. Sec.
56/57.18002 that require for each working place in metal and nonmetal
(MNM) mines an examination to be conducted for conditions that may
adversely affect safety or health.
One commenter stated that requiring the responsible person to
evaluate and update the written safety program is redundant and already
covered by part 56 requirements. Other commenters recommended that the
proposed language regarding ``surface mobile equipment changes or
modifications'' be removed. The commenters believe that any significant
changes in equipment are covered under the provision of ``mining
practices'' changing. In their view, this deletion would capture the
large-scale changes the Agency intended to cover without including
small, insignificant changes. These same commenters also recommended
removing the term ``injuries'' from the proposal because most powered
haulage injuries cannot meaningfully be addressed in a safety program.
The commenters stated that, for example, an equipment operator who
slams a finger in the door of a pickup truck or pulls a muscle climbing
on or off a loader has sustained a powered haulage injury, but they are
not the types of injuries that warrant re-evaluation of the program.
The commenters stated that ``accidents,'' however, should be retained
and that yearly is a reasonable timeframe to reevaluate the program.
Other commenters suggested that MSHA revise the requirement to read:
``evaluate and update the written safety program at least annually or
whenever necessary to manage safety risks associated with their surface
mobile equipment appropriately.''
Except the clarifications described earlier, this requirement is
the same as the proposal. As explained in the previous section, MSHA
believes that given the type of authority and responsibility, it is a
responsible person who must evaluate and update the written safety
program. In addition, as stated in the proposal, best practices shown
by NIOSH, OSHA, and other safety standards organizations include
ongoing evaluations of workplace activities and processes to address
safety proactively and to find and fix hazards before injuries and
fatalities happen. Moreover, in response to some commenters
recommending that the term injuries be removed from the requirements,
MSHA believes that the term is still needed because injuries are an
indicator of hazards at mines that could result in further injuries and
fatalities. The final rule also clarifies that the written safety
program must be evaluated and updated when mining conditions and
practices change that may adversely affect the health and safety of
miners.
6. Sections 56.23003(c), 57.23003(c), and 77.2103(c)
Final Sec. Sec. 56.23003(c), 57.23003(c), and 77.2103(c) is a
provision that requires operators to consult with miners and their
representatives in developing and updating the safety program. These
requirements are consistent with existing obligations to consult with
miners and representatives and MSHA's long-standing recognition that
such consultation is vital for ensuring the efficacy of safety
programs. Under existing requirements, operators already must (in many
cases) provide miners and miners' representatives the opportunity to
comment on or otherwise participate in these existing processes. See,
e.g., 30 CFR 46.3(g), 48.23(d) and (j)(1), and 56/57.18002. As these
existing processes are expected to be referenced in developing and
updating the safety program, miners and their representatives similarly
should be
[[Page 87912]]
consulted in developing and updating the program. In drafting the
proposal, MSHA intended that operators would seek input from miners and
their representatives in the development and updating of a meaningful
safety program, given their existing involvement with most of the
component parts of the program. The proposal also provided that the
responsible person ``should be able to communicate the operator's
commitment to safety and the importance of miners' involvement in the
program to prevent or mitigate hazards.'' 86 FR 50500. In addition,
commenters requested that miners and their representatives participate
in the development of the written safety program. MSHA includes this
provision in the final rule to recognize the comments and to be
consistent with the Agency's intent in the proposal and with the Mine
Act. In drafting the proposal, consistent with the Agency's long-
standing practice and section 2(e) of the Mine Act, MSHA intended that
miners would be involved in the development and updating of the
program, although it was not discussed in the preamble.
The Mine Act provides miners and their representatives a right to
participate in various safety and health activities. Some examples are
as follows. Section 2(e) provides that ``the operators of [coal or
other] mines with the assistance of the miners have the primary
responsibility to prevent the existence of [unsafe and unhealthy]
conditions and practices in such mines.'' Section 101(c) provides that
the representative of miners may petition the Secretary (of Labor) to
``modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or
other mine if the Secretary determines that 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 . . .'' Section 103(f) provides
that miners' representatives ``be given an opportunity to accompany the
Secretary or authorized representative during the physical inspection
of any coal or other mine . . .'' Section 103(g)(1) provides a
representative of miners or a miner in case there is no representative
the ``right to obtain an immediate inspection by giving notice to the
Secretary or authorized representative'' that a violation of the Mine
Act or its standards, or an imminent danger exists. Section 105(c)
provides miners and their representatives the right to file a
discrimination complaint with MSHA if they believe they have been
discharged, discriminated against, or interfered with for complaining
of ``an alleged danger or safety or health violation in a coal or other
mine''. Further, as stated by the Senate Committee on Human Resources
in keeping with a purpose of the Mine Act: ``If our national mine
safety and health program is to be truly effective, miners will have to
play an active part in the enforcement of the Act.'' S. Rep. No. 95-
181, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. at 35 (1977).
Based on MSHA's experience and past practice, and consistent with
the statutory intent of the Mine Act, miners and their representatives
are involved in many aspects of MSHA's enforcement program and
standards. MSHA is persuaded by commenters who stated that for safety
programs to be successful, there must be active and meaningful
participation from miners. The final rule makes explicit that miners
provide input in developing and updating the written safety program.
E. Sections 56.23004, 57.23004, and 77.2104--Record and Inspection
Final Sec. Sec. 56.23004, 57.23004, and 77.2104 is clarified from
the proposed provision. Like the proposal, the final rule requires that
the operator make available a copy of the written safety program for
inspection by authorized representatives of the Secretary, miners, and
their representatives. In response to comments and consistent with the
Mine Act that the operator, with the assistance of miners, is primarily
responsible for safety and health, the final rule clarifies that miners
and their representatives will receive, upon request, a copy of the
written safety program at no cost.
Several commenters requested that MSHA provide further clarity on
the acceptable formats for delivery of the written safety program. One
commenter stated that the proposed rule needs to clarify that the
written safety program is to be provided at no cost to miners and their
representatives. Another commenter stated that this section should
indicate that the written program can be maintained and provided
electronically.
The final rule allows operators the flexibility to create the
written safety program in any electronic or hard copy format, as long
as the written safety program includes the information required by the
final rule and can be made available for inspection by the Secretary,
miners, and their representatives. Consistent with the Agency's
longstanding policy, an operator must provide notice to miners by
providing an electronic or hard copy of the written safety program to
miners and their representatives, at no cost, upon request.
III. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive
Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review), and Executive Order 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)
Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (as amended by E.O. 14094), the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB)'s Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determines whether a regulatory action is
significant and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the E.O. and
review by OMB. 58 FR 51735, 51741 (1993). As amended by E.O. 14094,
section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 defines a ``significant regulatory action''
as a regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1)
have an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more; or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or state, local, territorial, or tribal governments
or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3)
materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user
fees or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or (4) raise legal or policy issues for which centralized
review would meaningfully further the President's priorities or the
principles set forth in the E.O. OIRA has determined that this rule is
significant under E.O. 12866, and accordingly it has been reviewed by
OMB.
E.O. 13563 directs agencies to propose or adopt a regulation only
upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs; the
regulation is tailored to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with achieving the regulatory objectives; and in choosing
among alternative regulatory approaches, the agency has selected those
approaches that maximize net benefits. 76 FR 3821 (2011). E.O. 13563
recognizes that some benefits are difficult to quantify and provides
that, where appropriate and permitted by law, agencies may consider and
discuss qualitative values that are difficult or impossible to
quantify, including equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive
impacts.
MSHA presents the costs and benefits associated with the final
rule. MSHA estimated the costs associated with the final rule's
requirements by adding the estimated costs of the following. First, the
estimated costs include developing
[[Page 87913]]
the written safety program document, including the actions the
operators will take to follow better safety procedures and practices,
by identifying and analyzing hazards, evaluating currently available
and emerging technologies, developing and maintaining maintenance and
repair schedules and procedures, and training miners and others to
identify and address hazards, and including miners in developing and
updating the program. Operators must also provide copies of the written
safety program to miners and their representatives upon request. MSHA
anticipates that the listing of actions operators will take will
enhance existing compliance and improve safety regarding several of the
existing requirements (such as training, maintenance and repair,
workplace exams) that the program must describe. Second, the estimated
costs include updating the written safety program at least annually and
under certain circumstances, such as when new equipment is brought to
the mine or when accidents or changes in mining conditions or practices
occur that may adversely affect the safety and health of miners, and
providing copies of the written safety program to miners and their
representatives upon request. The first component is a one-time,
initial compliance costs in the first year, whereas the second
component represents the recurring compliance costs for subsequent
years.
This section provides a summary of MSHA's cost and benefit
estimates of the final rule. This final rule is estimated to have a 10-
year total net benefit of $411 million at a 3 percent discount rate,
based on estimated 10-year total benefits of $522 million and estimated
10-year total costs of $111 million. At the 3 percent discount rate,
the estimated annualized net benefit is $48.2 million (annualized
benefits of $61.3 million and annualized costs of $13.0 million).
Supporting materials and data that provide additional details on the
methodology used to estimate the costs, benefits, and other required
analyses of this rule are included in the standalone Final Regulatory
Impact Analysis (FRIA), which has been placed in the rule docket (RIN
1219-AB91, Docket ID No. MSHA-2018-0016) at https://www.regulations.gov
and is posted on MSHA's website at https://www.msha.gov.
A. Mining Industry Profile
A total of 12,434 mines in the U.S. reported their working hours in
2021. Over 301,000 workers worked at those mines. Table III-1 shows
which types of mines the miners and other workers worked.
Table III-1--Mines and Employment by Surface or Underground Location in 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total mine Total
Commodity Location Mines Miners workers Contract contract Total
\1\ \2\ miners workers \2\ workers \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MNM............................................ Surface Including Facilities..... 11,236 128,156 149,846 60,120 ........... ...........
Underground...................... 235 18,223 20,712 7,047 ........... ...........
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 11,471 146,379 170,558 67,167 69,433 239,991
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coal........................................... Surface Including Facilities..... 750 18,294 19,200 11,887 ........... ...........
Underground...................... 213 21,323 21,916 7,664 ........... ...........
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 963 39,617 41,116 19,551 20,288 61,404
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Mines...................................... Surface Including Facilities..... 11,986 146,450 169,046 72,007 ........... ...........
Underground...................... 448 39,546 42,628 14,711 ........... ...........
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 12,434 185,996 211,674 86,718 89,721 301,395
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: MSHA MSIS Data (reported on MSHA Form 7000-2), Accessed on April 7, 2022.
Notes: All Miners and workers are calculated using employers' headcount reports; some miners and workers may be counted more than once, as they work at
more than one mine.
\1\ Of the 12,434 mines, 40 did not have any employment in surface areas; they were thus excluded from the analysis.
\2\ Total mine workers and total contract workers include both miners and office/administrative workers.
\3\ Total workers include total mine workers and total contract workers.
This final rule applies to all operators of surface mines and
underground mines with surface areas, including independent contractors
working at those mines. As shown, there were 11,986 surface mines and
448 underground mines. Most underground mines have surface areas where
miners work. Of all the mines, about 92 percent were metal and nonmetal
mines and the rest were coal mines.
B. Costs
Under the final rule, operators are required to develop, implement,
and update at least annually and when necessary, a written safety
program for surface mobile equipment used at their mines. As defined in
this rule, surface mobile equipment refers to wheeled, skid-mounted,
track-mounted, or rail-mounted equipment capable of moving or being
moved, and any powered equipment that transports people, equipment, or
materials, excluding belt conveyors, at surface mines and surface work
areas of underground mines.
The required written safety program for surface mobile equipment
must include the actions that operators will take to identify and
analyze hazards and reduce the resulting risks related to equipment
movement and operation. It must also include actions to develop and
maintain procedures and schedules for routine maintenance and non-
routine repairs. Operators are also required to describe the actions
they will take to identify currently available and newly emerging
feasible technologies that can enhance safety and evaluate whether to
adopt them. Finally, the rule requires operators to describe the
actions they will take to train miners and other persons at the mine
necessary to perform work to identify and address or avoid hazards
related to surface mobile equipment.
Once the written safety program is developed and implemented, a
responsible person is required to evaluate and update it for the mine
at least annually, or when mining conditions or practices change that
may adversely affect the health and safety of miners or other persons,
when accidents or injuries occur, or when surface
[[Page 87914]]
mobile equipment changes or modifications are made. While the final
rule provides operators flexibility to devise a safety program that is
appropriate for their specific mining conditions and operations, the
final rule also requires operators to solicit input from miners and
their representatives as they develop and update the written safety
program.
MSHA estimated the costs associated with the final rule's
requirements by adding the estimated costs of the following. First, the
estimated costs include developing the written safety program document,
including the actions the operators will take to identify and analyze
hazards, evaluate current and emerging technologies, develop and
maintain the maintenance and repair schedules and procedures, train
miners and others to identify and address hazards associated with
surface mobile equipment. Operators must also provide copies of the
written safety program to miners and their representatives upon
request. Second, the estimated costs include updating the written
safety program at least annually and under certain circumstances, such
as when new equipment is brought to the mine or when accidents or
changes in mining conditions or practices occur that may adversely
affect the safety and health of miners, and, for each update, providing
copies of the written safety program to miners and their
representatives upon request. The first component is considered to be
the one-time, initial compliance costs in the first year, whereas the
second component represents the recurring compliance costs for
subsequent years. Estimated costs also include providing copies of the
written safety program to miners and their representatives upon
request.
MSHA calculated these compliance costs based on the estimated time
spent by mine employees to develop and update the written safety
program, multiplied by their wage rates. MSHA assumed that mine
supervisors, safety professionals, and maintenance workers would
participate in the creation and updates of the written safety program.
MSHA assumed that operators will solicit input from miners and their
representatives in developing and maintaining all aspects of the
written safety program, and MSHA included the time for their
collaboration in its cost estimates.
MSHA further assumed that the time needed to develop and update the
written safety program would vary by the number of unique surface
mobile equipment units at each mine, which would be related to a mine's
production output (e.g., tonnage), and employment size.\8\ Based on
these factors, MSHA grouped all MNM and coal mines into three
categories each and estimated the compliance costs for this final rule
by category.\9\ MSHA also assumed a majority of independent contractors
(75 percent or 4,739) would develop and update a written safety program
for surface mobile equipment at mines.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ MSHA used metric tons for the production output as based on
the cost estimation chapter of the Society for Mining, Metallurgy,
and Exploration Handbook. Stebbins, S.A., and Leinart, J.B. 2011.
Cost estimating for surface mines. In SME Mining Engineering
Handbook, 3rd ed. Edited by P. Darling.
\9\ See Appendix A of the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis for
this final rule for a detailed explanation.
\10\ Based on its examination of the mining contractors listed
in 2021, MSHA estimated that approximately 75 percent of 6,318 part
45 independent contractors would be required under the final rule to
develop a safety program because they have surface mobile equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The total compliance cost estimates are shown in Table III-2. The
compliance costs for the 10-year period of analysis (i.e., 10-year
implementation period) are estimated to be about $126 million (in 2021
dollars) undiscounted, while the 10-year compliance costs discounted at
3 percent and 7 percent are about $111 million and $95 million,
respectively. The annualized costs discounted at 3 and 7 percent are
$13.0 million and $13.5 million, respectively.
Table III-2--Yearly Compliance Cost Estimates
[Millions of 2021 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total compliance costs
-----------------------------------------------
Implementation year Discounted at
-----------------------------------------------
0% 3% 7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1.......................................................... $37.0 $36.0 $34.6
Year 2.......................................................... 9.9 9.4 8.7
Year 3.......................................................... 9.9 9.1 8.1
Year 4.......................................................... 9.9 8.8 7.6
Year 5.......................................................... 9.9 8.6 7.1
Year 6.......................................................... 9.9 8.3 6.6
Year 7.......................................................... 9.9 8.1 6.2
Year 8.......................................................... 9.9 7.8 5.8
Year 9.......................................................... 9.9 7.6 5.4
Year 10......................................................... 9.9 7.4 5.0
-----------------------------------------------
10-Year Total............................................... 126.4 111.0 95.1
Annualized.................................................. 12.6 13.0 13.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not equal the sum of the components due to rounding.
C. Benefits
This final rule is expected to generate numerous benefits,
including reductions in individual injuries and fatalities, fostering
of a positive safety culture at the mine, reductions in worker
compensation and other insurance premiums, and decreases in down-time
(non-production time) due to accidents. Among these benefits, MSHA
focused on estimating the number of surface mobile equipment-related
fatalities and injuries that could be prevented due to this final rule
and the monetized benefits of those fatalities and injuries prevented.
MSHA also performed a sensitivity analysis covering different scenarios
that would lead to different percentages of fatalities and injuries
prevented, and thus to different levels of benefits depending on the
assumptions made.
Since the final rule includes all mines, MSHA modified the approach
[[Page 87915]]
from the proposed rule and used the following analysis to estimate the
monetized benefits of fatalities and injuries prevented. MSHA first
established a baseline using the fatality and injury data and post-
accident investigation reports from the 2011-2020 period. In the
proposed rule, MSHA used data for accidents, fatalities, and injuries
from the years 2003 to 2018 for mines that employed six or more miners.
For the final rule, however, MSHA is using more recent and
comprehensive data and detailed information concerning accidents,
fatalities, and injuries that occurred between 2011 and 2020 for all
mines. The Agency believes the more recent data better reflects current
and future circumstances.
To estimate the monetized benefits of fatalities and injuries
prevented, MSHA first examined historical fatality and injury data and
post-accident investigation reports from the 2011-2020 period. MSHA
found that over that 10-year period, there were 113 surface mobile
equipment fatalities. MSHA further observed that in the case of 63
(about 56 percent) of the 113 fatalities involving surface mobile
equipment, deficiencies in training, hazard identification, or
maintenance or any combination of these three factors contributed to
the fatality. MSHA also counted 13,753 non-fatal injuries involving
surface mobile equipment and 454,076 workdays lost due to those
injuries during the 10-year period.
Based on this historical analysis, MSHA projected the numbers of
surface mobile equipment fatalities, non-fatal injuries, and lost
workdays that would be expected due to deficiencies in training, hazard
identification, or maintenance, in the absence of the final rule. MSHA
then compared those projected numbers (``baseline'') with the
projections of the same types of fatalities, non-fatal injuries, and
workdays lost, in the presence of the final rule. The difference
between the two was used as the basis for calculating benefits of the
final rule. MSHA believes that a safety program that identifies actions
operators will take to accomplish the required tasks will reduce
fatalities, non-fatal injuries, and lost workdays that would be
expected due to deficiencies in training, hazard identification, or
maintenance because it will increase compliance with MSHA's existing
hazard identification, hazard correction, maintenance, and training
requirements.
MSHA projected that in the absence of the final rule, over the next
10 years, there would be 60 fatalities, 7,298 injuries, and 240,954
workdays lost annually due to deficiencies in training, hazard
identification, or maintenance related to surface mobile equipment.
These projections assume a mining workforce of approximately 253,401
(each working 2,000 hours in a year) each year. MSHA estimated that the
final rule would reduce the projected fatalities, injuries, and
workdays lost resulting from deficiencies in training, hazard
identification, or maintenance by about 75 percent for each year the
rule is in effect, beginning in the second year.\11\ MSHA then
performed a sensitivity analysis with two additional scenarios--a 50
percent reduction and a 25 percent reduction. Table III-3 and Table
III-4 present summaries of these results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ In the first year--because the rule will be effective for
only half the year--there would be a 37.5 percent, rather than a 75
percent, reduction.
Table III-3--Projected Surface Mobile Equipment Fatalities in the Absence of and With the Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the absence of final With final rule
rule --------------------------------------------------
------------------------- Fatalities prevented--projections
Projected surface --------------------------------------------------
mobile equipment
fatalities due to
Implementation year deficiencies in Program
training, hazard effectiveness Program Program
identification, or at 75% effectiveness effectiveness
maintenance (expected at 50% at 25%
------------------------- scenario)
Baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1 *............................ 6.00 2.2 1.5 0.7
Year 2.............................. 6.00 4.5 3.0 1.5
Year 3.............................. 6.00 4.5 3.0 1.5
Year 4.............................. 6.00 4.5 3.0 1.5
Year 5.............................. 6.00 4.5 3.0 1.5
Year 6.............................. 6.00 4.5 3.0 1.5
Year 7.............................. 6.00 4.5 3.0 1.5
Year 8.............................. 6.00 4.5 3.0 1.5
Year 9.............................. 6.00 4.5 3.0 1.5
Year 10............................. 6.00 4.5 3.0 1.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10-Year Total................... 60.0 42.7 28.5 14.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not equal the sum of the components due to rounding.
* Due to delayed compliance in the first year of implementation, MSHA assumes that there will be fewer
fatalities prevented in the first year than in each subsequent year. For example, under the expected scenario,
MSHA estimates that 4.5 lives will be saved in a full year after implementation, but given the 6-month delayed
compliance date, a half of 2.2 lives is assumed to be saved in the first year.
[[Page 87916]]
Table III-4--Projected Surface Mobile Equipment Injuries in the Absence of and With the Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the absence of final With final rule
rule --------------------------------------------------
------------------------- Injuries prevented--projections
Projected surface --------------------------------------------------
mobile equipment
injuries due to
Implementation year deficiencies in Program
training, hazard effectiveness Program Program
identification, or at 75% effectiveness effectiveness
maintenance (expected at 50% at 25%
------------------------- scenario)
Baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1 *............................ 730 273.7 182.5 91.2
Year 2.............................. 730 547.4 364.9 182.5
Year 3.............................. 730 547.4 364.9 182.5
Year 4.............................. 730 547.4 364.9 182.5
Year 5.............................. 730 547.4 364.9 182.5
Year 6.............................. 730 547.4 364.9 182.5
Year 7.............................. 730 547.4 364.9 182.5
Year 8.............................. 730 547.4 364.9 182.5
Year 9.............................. 730 547.4 364.9 182.5
Year 10............................. 730 547.4 364.9 182.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10-Year Total................... 7,298 5,200 3,467 1,733
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Totals may not equal the sum of the components due to rounding.
* Due to delayed compliance in the first year of implementation, MSHA assumes that there will be fewer injuries
prevented in the first year than in each subsequent year.
The monetary value of the reduction in fatalities and injuries
related to surface mobile equipment is calculated as follows. First, to
develop a monetized benefit estimate of fatality reduction, MSHA used
the Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) adopted by other Federal agencies
like the Department of Transportation and Department of Homeland
Security, and adjusted for the real per-capita Gross Domestic Product
(GDP). Second, to estimate the monetized benefit of injury reduction,
MSHA used the projected reduction in the number of workdays lost due to
injuries, multiplied by the average wage of miners. The monetized
benefits of reduced injuries were then calculated by multiplying the
total workdays lost due to the injuries and the average wage of miners.
Again, MSHA performed a sensitivity analysis with two additional
scenarios--a 25 percent reduction and a 50 percent reduction in
fatalities and injuries. In the expected scenario, the 10-year
monetized benefit totals, in 2021 dollars, are calculated at $522
million at a 3 percent discount rate and $424 million at a 7 percent
discount rate.
D. Net Benefits
Table III-5 presents the monetized net benefits for the first 10
years of implementation of the final rule. The 10-year net benefit
totals in 2021 dollars are $411 million at a 3 percent discount rate
and $329 million at a 7 percent discount rate. An annualized net
benefit is estimated at $48.2 million and $46.8 million, respectively,
at 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates.
Table III-5--Monetized Net Benefits
[Millions of 2021 dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expected scenario Low net benefit scenario Lowest net benefit scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discounted at Discounted at Discounted at
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0% 3% 7% 0% 3% 7% 0% 3% 7%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10-Year total *.................................... $493 $411 $329 $286 $237 $187 $80 $63 $46
Annualized......................................... 49.3 48.2 46.8 28.6 27.8 26.7 8.0 7.4 6.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not equal the sum of the components due to rounding.
* MSHA assumed that a full-year worth costs would be incurred, while projecting a half of the full-year monetized benefits in the first year, due to the
timing of implementation (6-month delayed compliance).
MSHA believes that the net-benefits of the rule are understandable,
because the costs of the safety program are modest relative to the
much-higher value of the estimated reduction in fatalities.
IV. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA) and Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) and Executive Order 13272: Proper
Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking
MSHA has reviewed the final rule to assess and take appropriate
account of its potential impact on small businesses, small governmental
jurisdictions, and small organizations. Pursuant to the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), MSHA analyzed the impact
of the final rule on small entities. Based on that analysis, MSHA
certifies that this final rule does not have a
[[Page 87917]]
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The factual basis for this certification is presented in this section.
A. Definition of Small
Under the RFA, when analyzing the impact of a rule on small
entities, MSHA must use the Small Business Administration's (SBA)
definition for a small entity or, after consultation with the SBA
Office of Advocacy, establish an alternative definition for the mining
industry by publishing that definition in the Federal Register for
notice and comment. The SBA uses North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) codes, generally at the 6-digit NAICS level, to set
thresholds for small business sizes for each industry.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Small Business Administration, Table of Size Standards:
Effective July 14, 2022. https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Factual Basis for Certification
Following SBA guidance on carrying out a threshold analysis, MSHA
evaluates the impacts on small entities by comparing the estimated
compliance costs of a rule for small entities in the sector affected by
the rule to the estimated revenues for the affected sector. When
estimated compliance costs are less than 1 percent of the estimated
industry revenues, it is generally appropriate to conclude that there
is no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. In addition to assessing the overall impact on small
entities, MSHA examines data for the NAICS codes that have much higher
impact ratios (cost/revenue) than others to ensure that the first-level
screening is representative.
As the first step, MSHA identified all small-entity controllers in
the mining industry on the basis of the small-entity thresholds. The
MNM and coal mining operations affected by the rule fall into two
general categories: (1) controllers (parent companies) that own and
operate mines, which is the appropriate unit for this RFA analysis
(based on SBA guidance),\13\ and (2) mining contractors (independent
contractors designated under part 45 of 30 CFR), hired by mine
operators to work at mines, that operate their own surface mobile
equipment. MSHA identified and analyzed the effect of the rule on
small-entity controllers of mines and on small-entity mining
contractors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ A controller is a parent company owning or controlling one
or more mines, whereas a mine is an establishment of that parent
company. Small entities, subject to requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, are entities that are parent companies only and not
establishments. See Small Business Administration, Office of
Advocacy, How to Comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, August
2017. Sec. 3(d) of the Mine Act defines ``operator'' as ``any owner,
lessee, or other person who operates, controls, or supervises a coal
or other mine.'' 30 U.S.C. 802(d). Under 30 CFR part 41, an operator
must file a legal identity report with MSHA and with this report,
MSHA identifies a controller for each mine. 30 U.S.C. 819(d) (each
operator shall file the name and address of the ``person who
controls or operates the mine.''). In the IRFA, MSHA considered the
controller of a mine and then determined whether the mine, not the
controller, was a small entity. In the FRFA, consistent with the SBA
guidance and the Mine Act, MSHA determines whether a controller is a
small entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To determine the number of small entities subject to the final
rule, MSHA reviewed NAICS, the standard used by Federal statistical
agencies in classifying business establishments, as well as information
from the SBA Office of Advocacy. MSHA used its data from the MSHA
Standardized Information System (MSIS) to identify the responsible
party for each mine, as well as the contractors hired to do work on
mines. MSHA then combined that information with the size classification
information. The two sections below describe MSHA's analysis of
controllers and mining contractors, respectively.
Small-entity controllers: In analyzing controllers of mines, MSHA
determined that mining operations that fall into 19 NAICS-based
industry classifications may be subject to the final rule. These
industry categories and their accompanying six-digit NAICS codes are
shown in Table IV-1.\14\ MSHA then matched the NAICS classifications
with SBA small-entity size standards (based on number of employees) to
determine the number of small entities within each of the respective
NAICS codes. See Table IV-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The NAICS classifications used in this analysis are drawn
from the latest version of the NAICS, which was effective in July
2022. MSHA also used, in the analysis, an earlier the version of
NAICS categories that were effective in August 2019. When developing
the analysis, MSHA had begun the work prior to the most current
NAICS being effective. The older NAICS categories were still used in
the part of the current analysis that estimated revenues. This is
because the older categories were still needed in order for MSHA to
cross-tabulate (or crosswalk) its data on mines and controllers with
Bureau of Census data on revenues by NAICS codes, where these Census
data were organized by the same NAICS codes that were in the earlier
version. No comparable revenue data, at this writing, had yet been
revised to the most recent NAICS categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSHA counted the number of small-entity controllers in each NAICS
code, after determining which mines were owned by which controllers.
Table IV-1 shows the count of all controllers and a count of small-
entity controllers in each NAICS code.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Some controllers own mines with more than one NAICS code if
those mines produce different commodities. For this analysis,
however, MSHA counted each ``unique'' controller only once. In other
words, there is no double-counting of the same controller if a
controller produces in more than one NAICS code. It is not uncommon
for firms to produce different products falling under more than one
six-digit NAICS codes, especially if the firm is large. In any case,
no single NAICS code is attributed to any controller that has more
than one NAICS code. Rather, the analysis takes all of any one
controller's multiple NAICS codes into account without losing any of
the information about the NAICS codes. Specifically, that one
controller's revenues and employees are partitioned among each of
that one controller's production by NAICS code, and then aggregated
for that one controller.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on this methodology, MSHA estimated that in 2021, there were
a total of 5,879 controllers, and 5,462 of them were small-entity
controllers. Many controllers owned one or two mines, while some
controllers owned hundreds of mines nationwide (or worldwide).\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The number of controllers and mines examined in this
regulatory flexibility analysis are those specifically known to
operate in 2021. The year 2021 is the most current year for which
complete information were available. Such information about
controllers as parent companies might include, for example,
knowledge of whether the parent company is a large, multinational
corporation, which has bearing on this regulatory flexibility
analysis. Because the benefit-cost analysis performed on the
proposed rule did not need this kind of detailed information about
controllers, it was able to have a broader scope to include data
from other years besides 2021, and to include some more data in the
year 2021 itself, which it did. As a result, the benefit cost
analysis included a larger number of mines (and affected mines) and
controllers. The key factor for this regulatory flexibility analysis
is the estimated ratio of the regulatory cost per revenue for
controllers, as reflected by the most current data. The estimation
of this ratio is robustly addressed in MSHA's analysis of the 5,879
controllers in 2021 (which is not impacted by the exclusion of other
years in this analysis).
[[Page 87918]]
Table IV-1--Small Entities Affected by the Final Rule: Number of Controllers and Small-Entity Controllers by
NAICS Code *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SBA size
standards in Number of
NAICS code Industry description maximum Number of all small-entity
number of controllers controllers
employees **
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
211120............................ Crude petroleum extraction 1,250 4 3
***.
211130............................ Natural Gas Extraction ***.. 1,250 1 0
212114............................ Surface Coal Mining......... 1,250 282 237
212115............................ Underground Coal Mining..... 1,500 122 99
212210............................ Iron Ore Mining............. 750 31 26
212220............................ Gold Ore and Silver Ore 1,500 142 108
Mining.
212230............................ Copper, Nickel, Lead, and 750 45 33
Zinc Mining.
212290............................ Other Metal Ore Mining...... 750 29 22
212311............................ Dimension Stone Mining and 500 491 432
Quarrying.
212312............................ Crushed and Broken Limestone 750 820 738
Mining and Quarrying.
212313............................ Crushed and Broken Granite 750 182 165
Mining and Quarrying.
212319............................ Other Crushed and Broken 500 760 704
Stone Mining and Quarrying.
212321............................ Construction Sand and Gravel 500 3,221 2,984
Mining.
212322............................ Industrial Sand Mining...... 500 172 155
212323............................ Kaolin, Clay, and Ceramic 500 161 143
and Refractory Minerals
Mining.
212390............................ Other Nonmetallic Mineral 500 151 123
Mining and Quarrying.
327310............................ Cement Manufacturing........ 1,000 74 53
327410............................ Lime Manufacturing.......... 750 58 49
331313............................ Primary production of 1,300 3 3
alumina and aluminum.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Each mine is assigned only one NAICS (as its major product) but some controllers that own more than one mine
own mines that are in different NAICS. Consequently, some controllers have more than one NAICS (when they own
mines with different NAICS) and they are therefore counted more than once in this table. See Table _-2 for the
distribution of controllers by the NAICS code for which they have the most employees, which will then show
only one NAICS code for each controller.
** SBA, effective July 14, 2022.
*** These categories are commonly associated with mines with activities involving crude petroleum or natural gas
extraction, but the mines in these categories that are counted here, and included in this analysis, also
involve mining operations that would fall under MSHA's jurisdiction. This analysis does not include crude
petroleum or natural gas extraction (and the mines that perform them exclusively) since MSHA does not regulate
these activities.
Each mine is assigned only one NAICS code, with that code
reflecting what that mine produces the most. There are several cases in
which more than one mine, owned by the same controller, have different
NAICS codes, and as a result that one controller has multiple NAICS
codes. For this reason, some controllers are counted more than once in
this Table IV-1 (as also explained in a footnote in the table). In
particular, of the 5,879 unique controllers identified in 2021, 608 of
them each owned multiple mines with different NAICS codes. In theory,
this could present an ambiguity as to whether a controller, with more
than one NAICS code, should be considered a small entity or not. Since
NAICS codes vary by their small-entity thresholds, it is theoretically
possible for a controller with more than one NAICS code to be a small
entity according to the threshold for one of its NAICS codes, while not
being a small entity under the lower threshold that applies to another
of its NAICS codes. However, this situation was not found to occur for
any of the controllers; all controllers that were determined to be
small entities met the conditions for a small entity for each of their
NAICS codes.
While some controllers are in more than one mining NAICS code, the
distribution of controllers by their most significant NAICS code may
also provide useful information about the general structure of the
industry. Therefore, MSHA also prepared Table IV-2 to present the
distribution of controllers by the one NAICS code under which the
largest number of their employees are reported. This table then assigns
only one NAICS code for each controller, allowing for a count of
controllers by their (mutually exclusive) most significant NAICS code
in mining.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Note that many of the controllers also own operations in
other, non-mining industries, and in other mining operations in
other nations.
Table IV-2--Small Entities Affected by the Final Rule: Distribution of Controllers by NAICS Category, With One
NAICS Code per Controller *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SBA size
standards in Number of
NAICS code Industry description maximum Number of all small-entity
number of controllers controllers
employees **
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
211120............................ Crude Petroleum Extraction 1,250 3 3
***.
211130............................ Natural Gas Extraction ***.. 1,250 1 0
212114............................ Surface Coal Mining......... 1,250 246 218
212115............................ Underground Coal Mining..... 1,500 93 75
212210............................ Iron Ore Mining............. 750 19 18
[[Page 87919]]
212220............................ Gold Ore and Silver Ore 1,500 98 82
Mining.
212230............................ Copper, Nickel, Lead, and 750 31 25
Zinc Mining.
212290............................ Other Metal Ore Mining...... 750 14 12
212311............................ Dimension Stone Mining and 500 415 382
Quarrying.
212312............................ Crushed and Broken Limestone 750 716 675
Mining and Quarrying.
212313............................ Crushed and Broken Granite 750 133 130
Mining and Quarrying.
212319............................ Other Crushed and Broken 500 617 596
Stone Mining and Quarrying.
212321............................ Construction Sand and Gravel 500 3,046 2,839
Mining.
212322............................ Industrial Sand Mining...... 500 120 113
212323............................ Kaolin, Clay, and Ceramic 500 108 101
and Refractory Minerals
Mining.
212390............................ Other Nonmetallic Mineral 500 108 95
Mining and Quarrying.
327310............................ Cement Manufacturing........ 1,000 61 49
327410............................ Lime Manufacturing.......... 750 48 47
331313............................ Primary production of 1,300 2 2
alumina and aluminum.
-----------------------------------------------
Total......................... ............................ .............. 5,879 5,462
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Each controller is assigned the one NAICS code for which it devotes the most employees, based on the employees
at its mines and each of its mines being associated with only one NAICS code.
** SBA, effective July 14, 2022.
*** These categories are commonly associated with mines with activities involving crude petroleum or natural gas
extraction, but the mines in these categories that are counted here, and included in this analysis, also
involve mining operations that would fall under MSHA's jurisdiction. This analysis does not include crude
petroleum or natural gas extraction (and the mines that perform them exclusively) since MSHA does not regulate
these activities.
MSHA estimated the costs of the rule for small-entity controllers
by summing the costs for each of these controller's mines. The
estimated cost for each mine was based on the number of miners at that
mine, and the mine's industry category. Thus, if two mines belonging to
the same controller had different NAICS codes, both of those NAICS
codes would be accounted for, and the total cost to the controller
would be calculated as the total cost for all of that controller's
mines. Similarly, the estimated revenues of controllers were derived as
the sum of the revenues of each of their mines, which was, in turn,
dependent on the NAICS codes associated with those mines. Thus, all of
NAICS codes for all of the mines, and all of the mines under all of the
NAICS codes, were accounted for in the estimates of the costs and
revenues of controllers.
As shown in Table IV-2, MSHA determined that, in 2021, there were a
total of 5,879 controllers, and 5,462 of them were small-entity
controllers. These small-entity controllers owned a total of 9,395
mines, out of the 12,529 mines owned by all controllers in 2021. Table
IV-3 presents a summary of the main findings regarding small-entity
controllers. As shown, MSHA estimated the total cost of the rule to all
5,462 small-entity controllers to be $26.69 million in the first year,
and $8.17 million in each subsequent year (in 2021 dollars). Per small
entity, this amounted to an average compliance cost of $4,886 in the
first year and $1,496 in each year thereafter. MSHA estimated the total
revenues of the 5,462 small-entity controllers to be $33,720 million
(in 2021 dollars). As a result of these estimates, MSHA found the
compliance cost of the final rule to small entities, as a percent of
revenues, on average, to be 0.165 percent in the first year, and 0.069
percent in each subsequent year. Among the small-entity controllers
examined, the compliance cost as a percent of controllers' revenues
ranged from near zero to a maximum of 0.341 percent in the first year,
and to a maximum of 0.175 percent in each year thereafter. On the basis
of these findings, MSHA determined that the final rule does not have a
significant impact on small entities controllers in the mining
industry.
Table IV-3--Main Findings for 5,462 Small-Entity Controllers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each
Economic measure First year subsequent
year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Compliance Costs (in Millions of $26.69 $8.17
2021 Dollars)..........................
Total Revenue (in Millions of 2021 $33,720 $33,720
Dollars)...............................
Average Compliance Cost per Small-Entity $4,886 $1,496
Controller (in 2021 Dollars)...........
Ratio of Total Compliance Cost/Total 0.079 0.024
Revenue (in Percent)...................
Average of the Ratios of Compliance Cost/ 0.165 0.069
Revenue (in Percent)...................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small-entity independent contractors: For its analysis of
independent contractors designated under part 45 of 30 CFR, MSHA used
MSIS data to first derive a list of all mining contractors in the year
2021. The list contained a total of 6,318 contractors. While these
contractors varied greatly in terms of their corresponding NAICS codes,
MSHA determined that the most relevant NAICS codes for characterizing
the mining contractors were the NAICS
[[Page 87920]]
Codes for (1) ``Support Activities for Coal Mining'' (213113), (2)
``Support Activities for Metal Mining'' (213114), and (3) ``Support
Activities for Nonmetallic Minerals'' (213115). MSHA did not have data
on parent companies of these contractors. However, MSHA analyzed data
on enterprises and establishments in these NAICS codes from the Census
Bureau, Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB).\18\ The SUSB data on
entities in these three NAICS codes indicated that the vast majority of
contractors (which would be listed separately in MSHA's data) are,
themselves, parent companies. Specifically, based on the SUSB data on
parent companies and the enterprises that belong to them, MSHA observed
that the number of enterprises in these three NAICS codes, on average,
exceeded the number of parent companies by only about 9 percent.
Therefore, over 91 percent of parent companies that are mining
contractors have only one establishment, implying that the vast
majority of listed contractors are themselves parent companies, rather
than subsidiaries of larger companies. Based on these findings, MSHA
assumed in its analysis that the contractors on its list are parent
companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Census Bureau, Statistics of U.S. Businesses. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/susb/2017-susb-annual.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on this assumption that each of the listed mining contractors
in 2021 is not a subsidiary of a larger company, MSHA estimated how
many of them would be considered small entities under the RFA. To make
this determination, MSHA applied the size thresholds for the three
NAICS categories for support activities for mining (213113, 213114, and
213115). Small entities in NAICS 213113 (support activities for coal
mining) are those with annual revenues below the threshold of $27.5
million in 2022 dollars, while those in NAICS 213114 (support
activities for metal mining) and NAICS 213115 (support activities for
nonmetallic minerals) have annual revenues of less than $41.0 million
and $20.5 million, respectively.\19\ In estimating how many contractors
are small entities, MSHA conservatively applied the $20.5 million (in
2022 dollars) threshold, so as not to underestimate the number of small
entities.\20\ MSHA's estimation of the number of small-entity
contractors may therefore be an overestimation; however, MSHA still
believes it is a close approximation to the number of small-entity
contractors that would be determined if more detailed data were
available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Small Business Administration, Table of Size Standards:
Effective July 14, 2022. https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards.
\20\ MSHA translated the threshold of $20.5 million in 2022
dollars to $17.44 million in 2017 dollars based on the Bureau of
Economic Analysis' GDP Price Index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the employment and revenue data in the SUSB tables for the
three NAICS Codes for support activities for mines, MSHA estimated that
mining support contractors have, on average, revenues of approximately
$315,000 (in 2017 dollars) per employee.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ It is important to note that, although, contractor revenues
may be close in magnitude to their costs, those costs often far
exceed their labor costs, and therefore their revenue per employee
would be expected to far exceed their average salaries. Such
additional costs, besides labor costs, include the costs of
equipment, fuel, overhead, taxes, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSHA's data on mining contractors included the number of employees
working for each contractor. MSHA was able to estimate the revenue of
each contractor by multiplying its number of employees by the average
revenue per employee of $315,000 from the SUSB data. From these
estimates of each contractor's revenue, MSHA estimated that
approximately 4,469 contractors out of a total of 4,739 contractors
affected by the rule (or about 94.3 percent of those contractors) are
potentially small entities, under the threshold of $17.4 million (in
2017 $) in annual revenue.
Table IV-3 presents a summary of the main findings on mining
contractors that would be affected by the rule. As shown, MSHA
estimated the total cost to all 4,469 potential small-entity
contractors of the rule to be $2.69 million in the first year and
$0.954 million in each subsequent year. Per small-entity contractor,
this amounted to an average cost of $453 in the first year and $212 in
each year thereafter. MSHA estimated the total revenues of the 4,469
potential small-entity contractors to be $12,783 million (in 2021
dollars). As a result of these estimates, MSHA found the cost of the
final rule to small-entity contractors, as a percent of revenue, to be,
on average across the contractors, 0.0211 percent of revenue in the
first year and 0.0074 percent of revenue in each subsequent year. On
the basis of these findings, MSHA determined that the final rule does
not have a significant impact on small-entity-contractors in the mining
industry.
Table IV-3--Main Findings for 4,469 Small-Entity Contractors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each
Economic measure First year subsequent
year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Compliance Costs (in Millions of $2.69 $0.95
2021 Dollars)..........................
Total Revenue (in Millions of 2021 $12,783 $12,783
Dollars)...............................
Average Compliance Cost Per Small-Entity $453 $212
Contractor (in 2021 Dollars)...........
Ratio of Total Compliance Cost/Total 0.0211 0.0074
Revenue (in Percent)...................
Average of the Ratios of Compliance Cost/ 0.0460 0.0212
Revenue (in Percent)...................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion, MSHA determined that the rule does not have a
significant effect on either small-entity mining controllers or small-
entity mining contractors. MSHA therefore certifies that this final
rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
V. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521)
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 under 5 CFR part 1320.
The PRA requires Federal agencies to obtain approval from OMB before
requesting or requiring ``a collection of information'' from the
public.
MSHA determined that this final rule creates a new information
collection burden for the mining community. However, the final rule
does not contain changes that transfer burden from, or add burden to,
existing information
[[Page 87921]]
collections because the paperwork requirements in this rule are
applicable to only the new information collection discussed below. MSHA
expects that some mine operators may use existing information
collections to help the development or implementation of a written
safety program at their mine. For example, under OMB No. 1219-0089,
Safety Defects; Examination, Correction, and Records, MNM operators
record inspections of surface mobile equipment before equipment is
placed in operation and when equipment is removed from service to be
repaired before use is resumed. Under OMB No. 1219-0083, Surface Coal
Mines Daily Inspection; Certified Person; Reports of Inspection, coal
mine operators record reports of hazardous conditions in active work
areas of surface operations along with a description of any corrective
actions taken. Some operators may incorporate these existing
information collections, if applicable, into their safety program for
surface mobile equipment because they have determined the existing
information collections would support the safety program's development
or implementation. Hence, only new requirements from this final rule
will be recorded under this new information collection and there will
be no change to existing information collections.
Once OMB completes its review of MSHA's new information collection,
the Agency will publish a notice on the new information collection
under the Information Collection Review (ICR) 1219-0155. (The regulated
community is not required to respond to any collection of information
unless it displays a current, valid, OMB control number.)
A. New Information Collection Under ``Safety Program for Surface Mobile
Equipment''
Under this final rule, new burdens will apply to operators and
independent contractors who are subject to 30 CFR part 45, as discussed
below.
Section 56.23003(a) requires operators of surface metal and
nonmetal mines to develop, implement, and update a written safety
program for surface mobile equipment to reduce the number and rates of
accidents, injuries, and fatalities. This subpart applies to all
surface mobile equipment at surface metal and nonmetal mines. Such a
program will include actions the operator will take to:
(1) Identify and analyze hazards and reduce the resulting risks
related to the movement and the operation of surface mobile equipment;
(2) Develop and maintain procedures and schedules for routine
maintenance and non-routine repairs for surface mobile equipment;
(3) Identify currently available and newly emerging feasible
technologies that enhance safety at the mine and evaluate whether to
adopt them; and
(4) Train miners and other persons at the mine necessary to perform
work to identify and address or avoid hazards related to surface mobile
equipment.
Section 57.23003(a) requires operators of underground metal and
nonmetal mines to develop, implement, and update a written safety
program for surface mobile equipment to reduce the number and rates of
accidents, injuries, and fatalities. This subpart applies to all
surface mobile equipment at surface areas of underground metal and
nonmetal mines. Such a program will describe actions the operator will
take to:
(1) Identify and analyze hazards and reduce the resulting risks
related to the movement and the operation of surface mobile equipment;
(2) Develop and maintain procedures and schedules for routine
maintenance and non-routine repairs for surface mobile equipment;
(3) Identify currently available and newly emerging feasible
technologies that enhance safety at the mine and evaluate whether to
adopt them; and
(4) Train miners and other persons at the mine necessary to perform
work to identify and address or avoid hazards related to surface mobile
equipment.
Section 77.2103(a) requires operators of surface coal mines and
surface work areas of underground coal mines to develop, implement, and
update a written safety program for surface mobile equipment to reduce
the number and rates of accidents, injuries, and fatalities. This
subpart applies to all surface mobile equipment at surface coal mines
and surface work areas of underground coal mines. Such a program will
describe actions the operator will take to:
(1) Identify and analyze hazards and reduce the resulting risks
related to the movement and the operation of surface mobile equipment;
(2) Develop and maintain procedures and schedules for routine
maintenance and non-routine repairs for surface mobile equipment;
(3) Identify currently available and newly emerging feasible
technologies that enhance safety at the mine and evaluate whether to
adopt them; and
(4) Train miners and other persons at the mine necessary to perform
work to identify and address or avoid hazards related to surface mobile
equipment.
In addition, Sec. Sec. 56.23003(b), 57.23003(b), and 77.2103(b)
require evaluation and updates to the written safety program at least
annually, or as mining conditions or practices change that may
adversely affect the health and safety of miners or other persons, as
accidents or injuries occur, or as surface mobile equipment changes or
modifications are made.
B. Information Collection Requirements
I. Type of Review: New Collection.
OMB Control Number: 1219-0155.
1. Title: Safety Program for Surface Mobile Equipment.
2. Description of the ICR: This final rule on safety program for
surface mobile equipment contains collection of information
requirements that will assist miners, operators, and independent
contractors in identifying risks to their safety and help reduce
injuries and fatalities at mines.
There are provisions of this final rule that have different burden
hours, burden costs, and responses each year. Therefore, MSHA shows the
estimates of burden hours, burden costs, and responses in three
separate years.
3. Summary of the Collection of Information:
Sections 56.23003(a), 57.23003(a), 77.2103(a)--Developing and
Implementing Written Safety Program
ICR. Final Sec. Sec. 56.23003(a), 57.23003(a), and 77.2103(a)
require operators to develop and implement written safety programs.
Number of respondents. For Sec. Sec. 56.23003(a), 57.23003(a), and
71.2103(a), the respondents consist of operators and independent
contractors owning and using surface mobile equipment since they will
be responsible for developing and implementing the written safety
program for surface mobile equipment.
MSHA estimates that, based on its 2021 data, a total of 17,133
respondents (12,394 operators and 4,739 part 45 independent
contractors) will develop a written safety program for surface mobile
equipment in the first year of implementation. MSHA estimated that
12,394 are surface mines and underground mines with surface areas, so
the operators of those mines are assumed to comply with this rule. MSHA
estimates that some operators may need to update, enhance, or even
develop portions of this written safety program to meet current
requirements. MSHA estimated that no additional recordkeeping costs
will be generated by the activities associated with training because
this activity is already being performed during compliance efforts for
existing training standards.
[[Page 87922]]
Annual number of responses. The estimated average annual number of
responses will be 17,133.
Estimated annual burden. The total burden arising from the
development of the safety program in the first year of implementation
is estimated to be 682,833 hours, which includes 297,687 hours to list
the actions the operator will take to conduct the mine-specific hazard
analysis and technology evaluation components of the safety program,
383,860 hours for listing the actions operators will take to develop a
maintenance schedule for surface mobile equipment as part of the
written safety program (if needed), as well as 1,285 hours to make
available and copy the written safety program. An average burden per
respondent is estimated to be 39.85 hours to develop a written safety
program for surface mobile equipment in the first year.
Sections 56.23003(b), 57.23003(b), and 71.2103(b)--Annual Updates to
the Written Safety Program
ICR. Final Sec. Sec. 56.23003(b), 57.23003(b), and 71.2103(b)
require the responsible person to evaluate and update the written
safety program for the mine at least annually, or as mining conditions
or practices change that may adversely affect the health and safety of
miners or other persons, as accidents or injuries occur, or as surface
mobile equipment changes or modifications are made.
Number of respondents. For Sec. Sec. 56.23003(b), 57.23003(b), and
71.2103(b), the respondents will consist of all operators and
contractors who have developed a written safety program for surface
mobile equipment. MSHA estimates that a total of 17,133 mine operators
and independent contractors will subsequently update a written safety
program for surface mobile equipment in years two and three. The
respondents will update at least annually, or as mining conditions or
practices change that may adversely affect the health and safety of
miners or other persons, as accidents or injuries occur, or as surface
mobile equipment changes or modifications are made.
Annual number of responses. The estimated average annual number of
responses will be 17,133.
Estimated annual burden. The total burden arising from the annual
and other updating of the safety program will be 259,834 hours in the
second and third years of implementation, 129,917 hours each year. This
annual burden includes updates to the written safety program arising
from changing conditions at mine sites, surface mobile equipment unit
updates, as well as making available and copying the written safety
program. The estimated annual burden per respondent is 7.58 hours.
Besides the development and update of the written safety program,
no additional information collection cost is expected. Information
collection associated with training requirements in this final rule is
covered under existing regulations in 30 CFR parts 46, 48, and 77.
Total Recordkeeping and Documentation Burden for the Safety Program for
Surface Mobile Equipment Rule
Table V-1--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping and Documentation Burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual number Annual burden Estimated
Year of Annual number per annual burden
respondents of responses respondent (Hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1......................................... 17,133 17,133 39.85 682,833
Year 2......................................... 17,133 17,133 7.58 129,917
Year 3......................................... 17,133 17,133 7.58 129,917
----------------------------------------------------------------
3-Year Total............................... 17,133 51,399 55.02 942,666
Annual Average............................. 17,133 17,133 18.34 314,222
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cost estimates of information collection burden are calculated
as follows. In the first year, the average burden per respondent for
developing a safety program, combining hazard analysis and technology
evaluation, identifying actions operators will take to maintain and
repair equipment and train miners as well as making available and
copying the written safety program, is 39.85 hours for a total of
682,833 burden hours in Year 1. In Years 2 and 3, the average burden
per respondent for updating a safety program is 7.58 hours, for a total
of 129,917 burden hours in Year 2 and 129,917 burden hours in Year 3.
MSHA determined the hourly wage rates through data from the U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Occupational
Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) published May 2021. Annual Burden
Hours are summarized in Table V-2.
Table V-2--Wage and Hour Burdens
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loaded hourly Year 1 burden Year 2 burden Year 3 burden
Occupation wage rate * hours hours hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mining Supervisor, MNM......................... $61.41 241,085.00 103,182.50 103,182.50
Mining Supervisor, Coal........................ 71.79 21,198.80 7,989.28 7,989.28
Maintenance and Mechanic, MNM.................. 42.22 307,802.50 .............. ..............
Maintenance and Mechanic, Coal................. 47.70 33,406.80 .............. ..............
Occupational Health & Safety Specialist, MNM... 59.06 16,318.40 4,561.34 4,561.34
Occupational Health & Safety Specialist, Coal.. 68.29 8,422.40 2,354.24 2,354.24
Clerk, MNM..................................... 35.58 858.78 858.78 858.78
Clerk, Coal.................................... 35.01 70.80 70.80 70.80
Clerk, Contractor.............................. 35.45 355.43 355.43 355.43
Mining Supervisor, Contractor.................. 63.70 10,662.75 10,544.28 10,544.28
Maintenance and Mechanic, Contractor........... 43.43 42,651.00 .............. ..............
[[Page 87923]]
Occupational Health & Safety Specialist, 61.09 .............. .............. ..............
Contractor....................................
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total (Rounded)............................ ............... 682,833 129,917 129,917
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Loaded hourly wages are mean wages that are increased by a benefits multiplier of 1.488 plus a separate
overhead multiplier of 1.01.
The resulting annual burden cost is summarized in Table V-3.
Table V-3--Summary of Information Collection Burden for Safety Program for Surface Mobile Equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Respondents........................... 17,133 17,133 17,133 17,133
Number of Responses............................. 17,133 17,133 17,133 17,133
Number of Burden Hours (Rounded)................ 682,833 129,917 129,917 314,222
Respondent or Recordkeeping Costs (Rounded)..... $25,700 $25,700 $25,700 $25,700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.
2. Estimated Number of Respondents: 17,133 respondents in the first
year; 17,133 respondents in the second year; and 17,133 respondents in
the third year.
3. Frequency: On occasion.
4. Estimated Number of Responses: 17,133 responses in the first
year; 17,133 responses in the second year; and 17,133 responses in the
third year.
5. Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 682,833 hours in the first
year; 129,917 hours in the second year; and 129,917 hours in the third
year.
6. Estimated Respondent or Recordkeeper Hour Burden Costs: $25,700
in the first year; $25,700 in the second year; and $25,700 in the third
year.
For a detailed summary of the burden hours and related costs by
provision, see the FRIA accompanying the final rule. The FRIA includes
the estimated costs and assumptions for the paperwork requirements
related to this final rule.
MSHA received comments on the information collection requirements
contained in the proposed rule (86 FR 50496). These comments are
addressed in the Supporting Statement for the information collection
requirements for this final rule. The Information Collection Supporting
Statement is available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, on
MSHA's website at https://www.msha.gov/regs/fedreg/informationcollection/informationcollection.asp, and at https://www.regulations.gov. A copy of the Statement is also available from
MSHA by request to S. Aromie Noe at [email protected], by phone
request to 202-693-9440, or by facsimile to 202-693-9441. These are not
toll-free numbers.
VI. Other Regulatory Considerations
A. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.), requires each Federal agency to consider the
environmental effects of final actions and to prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement on major actions significantly affecting the quality
of the environment. MSHA has reviewed the final rule in accordance with
NEPA requirements, the regulations of the Council on Environmental
Quality (40 CFR part 1500), and the Department of Labor's NEPA
compliance procedures (29 CFR part 11). As a result of this review,
MSHA has determined that this final rule will not have a significant
environmental impact. Accordingly, MSHA has not conducted an
environmental assessment nor provided an environmental impact
statement.
B. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Act) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et
seq.) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their
discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses
actions that may result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million (adjusted annually for inflation) or more in any 1 year. MSHA
has reviewed the final rule and has determined that it does not result
in such an expenditure. Accordingly, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 requires no further Agency action or analysis.
C. The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999:
Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act of 1999 (5 U.S.C. 601 note) requires agencies to assess the impact
of Agency action on family well-being. MSHA has determined that the
final rule has no effect on family stability or safety, marital
commitment, parental rights and authority, or income or poverty of
families and children, as defined in the Act. Accordingly, MSHA
determines that the final rule does not impact family well-being, as
defined in the Act.
D. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) allows Congress
to review ``major'' rules issued by federal agencies. The Congressional
Review Act states that, before a rule may take effect, the agency
issuing the rule must submit the rule, and certain related information,
to each House of Congress and the Comptroller General. 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1). The Congressional Review Act defines a major rule as one
that has resulted in or is likely to result in (1) an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more; (2) a major increase in costs or
prices for consumers, individual industries, federal, state, or local
government agencies, or geographic regions; or (3) significant adverse
effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, or
innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to
compete with foreign-based enterprises
[[Page 87924]]
in domestic and export markets. 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, this rule is not a
``major rule,'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). However, pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act, MSHA will submit a copy of this final rule to
both Houses of Congress and to the Comptroller General.
E. Executive Order 12630: Government Actions and Interference With
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights
E.O. 12630 requires Federal agencies to ``identify the takings
implications of proposed regulatory actions . . . .'' MSHA has
determined that the final rule does not include a regulatory or policy
action with takings implications. Accordingly, E.O. 12630 requires no
further Agency action or analysis.
F. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
Section 3 of E.O. 12988 contains requirements for Federal agencies
promulgating new regulations or reviewing existing regulations to
minimize litigation by eliminating drafting errors and ambiguity,
providing a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a
general standard, promoting simplification, and reducing burden. MSHA
has reviewed the final rule and has determined that it meets the
applicable standards provided in E.O. 12988 to minimize litigation and
undue burden on the Federal court system. Accordingly, the final rule
meets the applicable standards provided in E.O. 12988, Civil Justice
Reform.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
E.O. 13045 requires Federal agencies submitting covered regulatory
actions to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)
for review, pursuant to E.O. 12866, to provide OIRA with (1) an
evaluation of the environmental health or safety effects that the
planned regulation may have on children, and (2) an explanation of why
the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the agency. In E.O.
13045, ``covered regulatory action'' is defined as rules that may (1)
be significant under E.O. 12866, supplemented by E.O. 14094, (i.e., a
rulemaking that has an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or
more or would adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector
of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or
communities), and (2) concern an environmental health risk or safety
risk that an agency has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children. Environmental health risks and safety risks refer to risks to
health or to safety that are attributable to products or substances
that the child is likely to come in to contact with or ingest through
air, food, water, soil, or product use or exposure.
This final rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not
significant under section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866, and because it does
not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk that may
disproportionately affect children. This final rule is requiring that
operators develop, implement, and update a written safety program for
surface mobile equipment (excluding belt conveyors) at surface mines
and surface areas of underground mines. The written safety program
includes actions operators will take to identify hazards and risks to
reduce accidents, injuries, and fatalities related to surface mobile
equipment. This rule does not concern risks to health or to safety that
are attributable to products or substances that children are likely to
come in to contact with or ingest through air, food, water, soil, or
product use or exposure. Accordingly, E.O. 13045 requires no further
Agency action or analysis.
H. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
MSHA has determined that the final rule does not have federalism
implications because it does 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, E.O. 13132 requires no
further Agency action or analysis.
I. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
MSHA has determined that the final rule does not have tribal
implications because it does 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, E.O. 13175 requires no further Agency action or analysis.
J. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
E.O. 13211 requires agencies to publish a Statement of Energy
Effects for ``significant energy actions'' which are agency actions
that are ``likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy'' including a ``shortfall in supply,
price increases, and increased use of foreign supplies.'' MSHA reviewed
the final rule for its impact on the production of coal and uranium
mining. The final rule results in annualized costs of approximately
$12.6 million (in 2021 dollars, undiscounted) to covered surface mines
and surface areas of underground mines, though most of these costs will
be incurred in MNM mining that does not involve uranium mining (nor
coal mining). MSHA therefore determined that such costs do not have any
substantive effect on coal and uranium mining. Because the final rule
does not result in a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy, it is not a ``significant energy
action.'' Accordingly, E.O. 13211 requires no further Agency action or
analysis.
K. Executive Order 13985: Advancing Racial Equity and Support for
Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government; Executive Order
14091: Further Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved
Communities Through the Federal Government
E.O. 13985 provides ``that the Federal Government should pursue a
comprehensive approach to advancing equity for all, including people of
color and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized,
and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality.'' E.O.
13985 defines ``equity'' as ``consistent and systematic fair, just, and
impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who
belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment,
such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons,
Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color;
members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender,
and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live
in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent
poverty or inequality.'' To assess the impact of the final rule on
equity, MSHA considered two factors: (1) the racial/ethnic distribution
in mining in NAICS 212
[[Page 87925]]
(which does not include oil and gas extraction) compared to the racial/
ethnic distribution of the U.S. workforce (Table VI-1), and (2) the
extent to which mining may be concentrated within general mining
communities (Table VI-2).
In 2008, NIOSH conducted a survey of mines, which entailed sending
a survey packet to 2,321 mining operations to collect a wide range of
information, including demographic information on miners. NIOSH's 2012
report, entitled ``National Survey of the Mining Population: Part I:
Employees'' reported the findings of this survey.\22\ Race and
ethnicity information about U.S. mine workers is presented in Table VI-
1. Of all mine workers, including miners as well as administrative
employees at mines, 93.4 percent of mine workers were white, compared
to 80.6 percent of all U.S workers.\23\ There were larger percentages
of American Indian or Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian or Other
Pacific Islander people in the mining industry compared to all U.S.
workers, while there were smaller percentages of Asian, Black or
African American, and Hispanic/Latino people in the mining industry
compared to all U.S. workers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH), ``National Survey of the Mining Population: Part I:
Employees,'' June 2012. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/works/coversheet776.html.
\23\ National data on workers by race were not available for the
year 2008; comparable data for 2012 are provided for comparison
under the assumption that there would not be major differences in
distributions between these 2 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 6 of E.O. 14091 further provides that agencies are ``to
create equitable economic opportunity and advance projects that build
community wealth'' in rural America. The final rule helps miners in
rural areas by improving safety and health at their mines. Table VI-2
shows that there are 22 mining communities, defined as counties where
at least 2 percent of the population is working in the mining
industry.\24\ Although the total population in this table represents
only 0.15 percent of the U.S. population, it represents 12.0 percent of
all mine workers. The average per capita income in these communities in
2020, $47,977,\25\ was lower than the U.S. average, $59,510,
representing 80.6 percent of the U.S. average. However, each county's
average per capita income varies substantially, ranging from 56.4
percent of the U.S. average to 146.8 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Although 2 percent may appear to be a small number for
identifying a mining community, one might consider that if the
average household with one parent working as a miner has five
members in total, then approximately 10 percent of households in the
area would be directly associated with mining. While 10 percent may
also appear small, this refers to the county. There are likely
particular areas that have a heavier concentration of mining
households.
\25\ This is a simple average rather than a weighted average by
population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This final rule is requiring that operators develop, implement, and
update a written safety program for surface mobile equipment (excluding
belt conveyors) at surface mines and surface areas of underground
mines. The written safety program includes actions operators will take
to identify hazards and risks to reduce accidents, injuries, and
fatalities related to surface mobile equipment. MSHA determined that
the final rule is consistent with the goals of E.O. 13985 and supports
the advancement of equity for all workers at mines, including those who
are historically underserved and marginalized.
Table VI-1--Racial and Ethnic Distribution of Miners *
[2012]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a percent of total
Number of miners in miners who self- Percent of all workers in
mining (except oil and identified in these the United States for
gas) (NAICS 212) categories (latest data comparison (latest data
for 2008) 2012) ****
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethnicity:
Hispanic/Latino............. 26,622 12.1 15.0
Non-Hispanic or Latino...... 192,839 87.9 85.0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................... 219,461 100.0 100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Race: **
American Indian or Alaska 4,050 1.9 0.8
Native ***.................
Asian....................... 183 0.1 5.4
Black or African American... 8,893 4.3 13.0
Native Hawaiian or Other 634 0.3 0.2
Pacific Islander...........
White....................... 194,016 93.4 80.6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................... 207,776 100.0 100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The term ``miners'' includes miners and other workers at mines such as administrative employees.
** Does not include miners who did not self-report in one of these categories. Some of the surveyed miners may
not have self-reported in one of these categories if they are affiliated with more than one race, or if they
chose not to respond to this survey question.
*** Includes miners who self-identified as an American Indian or Alaskan Native as a single race, not in
combination with any other races. No other data on miners in this racial group were available from this
source. In other employment statistics often reported on American Indians and Alaska Natives, their population
is based on self-reporting as being American Indian or Alaska Native in combination with any other race, which
has resulted in the reporting of much higher employment levels. See BLS, Monthly Labor Review, ``Alternative
Measurements of Indian Country: Understanding Their Implications for Economic, Statistical, and Policy
Analysis,'' https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2021/article/alternative-measurements-of-indian-country.htm.
**** More recent data from the 2020 Decennial Census were not available in September 2022.
Sources: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 2012a. National Survey of the Mining
Population Mining Publication: Part 1: Employees, DHHS (NIOSH) Pub. No. 2012-152, June 2012; U.S. Census
Bureau, 2012 American Community Survey (ACS).
[[Page 87926]]
Table VI-2--Mining Counties: Counties in the United States With Relatively High Concentrations of Miners *
[At least 2 percent of the county population]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Number of miners Population of percent of
Number County (first quarter county (latest population
2022) data in 2021) who are
miners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................ White Pine County, 1,288.............. 9,182.............. 14.0
Nevada.
2................................ Pershing County, 771................ 6,741.............. 11.4
Nevada.
3................................ Humboldt County, 1,549.............. 17,648............. 8.8
Nevada.
4................................ Campbell County, 3,547.............. 46,401............. 7.6
Wyoming.
5................................ Winkler County, 513................ 7,415.............. 6.9
Texas.
6................................ Mercer County, 555................ 8,323.............. 6.7
North Dakota.
7................................ Chase County, 166................ 2,598.............. 6.4
Kansas.
8................................ Shoshone County, 723................ 13,612............. 5.3
Idaho.
9................................ Logan County, West 1,643.............. 31,909............. 5.1
Virginia.
10............................... Sweetwater County, 2,050.............. 41,614............. 4.9
Wyoming.
11............................... Glasscock County, 56................. 1,149.............. 4.9
Texas.
12............................... Livingston County, 431................ 8,959.............. 4.8
Kentucky.
13............................... Buchanan County, 946................ 19,816............. 4.8
Virginia.
14............................... McDowell County, 660................ 18,363............. 3.6
West Virginia.
15............................... Big Horn County, 413................ 11,632............. 3.6
Wyoming.
16............................... Sevier County, Utah 601................ 21,906............. 2.7
17............................... Boone County, West 582................ 21,312............. 2.7
Virginia.
18............................... Moffat County, 349................ 13,185............. 2.6
Colorado.
19............................... Nye County, Nevada. 1,062.............. 43,946............. 2.4
20............................... Raleigh County, 1,647.............. 73,771............. 2.2
West Virginia.
21............................... Wyoming County, 456................ 21,051............. 2.2
West Virginia.
22............................... Elko County, Nevada 1,090.............. 53,915............. 2.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 20,963............. 494,448............ 4.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All U.S. Counties..................................... 174,387............ 331,893,745........ ..............
Miners in Mining Counties as a Percent of All U.S. 12.0%.............. ................... ..............
Miners.
Population of Mine Counties as a Percent of U.S. ................... 0.15%.............. ..............
Population.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The term ``miners'' includes miners and other workers at mines such as administrative employees.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Quarterly Employment and Wages First Quarter 2022 (2022); Bureau of
Economic Analysis, Personal Income by County, Metro, and Other Areas 2020 (2020); U.S. Census Bureau, ``Annual
Estimates of the Resident Population for Counties: April 1, 2020, to July 1, 2021 (CO-EST2021-POP).''
Census.gov. Accessed DATE. Available at: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2020s-counties-total.html; U.S. Census Bureau, Quick Facts, available at: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045221 table/US/PST045221 (accessed DATE).
VII. References
American Society of Safety Professionals (ASSP), Occupational Health
and Safety Management Systems, ANSI/ASSP Z10-2012, (R2017).
International Standards Organization (ISO), Occupational Health and
Safety Management Systems--Requirements With Guidance for Use (ISO
45001:2018).
National Mining Association, CORESafety and Health Management System
U.S Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), Recommended Practices for Safety and Health
Programs (https://www.osha.gov/safety-management).
U.S. Department of Transportation, 49 CFR part 270--System Safety
Program.
List of Subjects
30 CFR Parts 56 and 57
Metal and nonmetal mining, Mine safety and health, Surface mining,
Mobile equipment safety program, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, and Underground mining.
30 CFR Part 77
Coal mining, Mine safety and health, Surface mining, Mobile
equipment safety program, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and
Underground mining.
Christopher J. Williamson
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, and under the authority of
the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, as amended by the Mine
Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006, chapter I of title
30 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
SUBCHAPTER K--METAL AND NONMETAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
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. Add subpart T to part 56 to read as follows:
Subpart T--Safety Program for Surface Mobile Equipment
Sec.
56.23000 Purpose and scope.
56.23001 Definitions.
56.23002 Written safety program.
56.23003 Requirements for written safety program.
56.23004 Record and inspection.
[[Page 87927]]
Sec. 56.23000 Purpose and scope.
This subpart requires operators to develop, implement, and update a
written safety program for surface mobile equipment to reduce the
number and rates of accidents, injuries, and fatalities. This subpart
applies to surface mobile equipment at surface metal and nonmetal
mines. The purpose of this safety program is to promote and support a
positive safety culture and improve miners' safety at the mine.
Sec. 56.23001 Definitions.
The following definitions apply in this subpart--
Responsible person means a person with authority and responsibility
to evaluate and update a written safety program for surface mobile
equipment.
Surface mobile equipment means wheeled, skid-mounted, track-
mounted, or rail-mounted equipment capable of moving or being moved,
and any powered equipment that transports people, equipment, or
materials, excluding belt conveyors, at surface metal and nonmetal
mines.
Sec. 56.23002 Written safety program.
(a) Each operator shall develop and implement a written safety
program for surface mobile equipment that contains the elements in this
subpart, no later than July 17, 2024.
(b) Each operator shall designate at least one responsible person
to evaluate and update the written safety program, no later than July
17, 2024.
Sec. 56.23003 Requirements for written safety program.
(a) The operator shall develop and implement a written safety
program that includes actions the operator will take to:
(1) Identify and analyze hazards and reduce the resulting risks
related to the movement and the operation of surface mobile equipment;
(2) Develop and maintain procedures and schedules for routine
maintenance and non-routine repairs for surface mobile equipment;
(3) Identify currently available and newly emerging feasible
technologies that can enhance safety at the mine and evaluate whether
to adopt them; and
(4) Train miners and other persons at the mine necessary to perform
work to identify and address or avoid hazards related to surface mobile
equipment.
(b) The responsible person shall evaluate and update the written
safety program at least annually, or as mining conditions or practices
change that may adversely affect the health and safety of miners or
other persons, as accidents or injuries occur, or as surface mobile
equipment changes or modifications are made.
(c) The operator shall solicit input from miners and their
representatives in developing and updating the written safety program.
Sec. 56.23004 Record and inspection.
(a) The operator shall make the written safety program available
for inspection by authorized representatives of the Secretary and
provide a copy upon request.
(b) The operator shall make the written safety program available
for inspection by miners and their representatives and, at no cost,
provide a copy upon request.
PART 57--SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS--UNDERGROUND METAL AND
NONMETAL MINES
0
3. The authority citation for part 57 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811.
0
4. Add subpart U to part 57 to read as follows:
Subpart U--Safety Program for Surface Mobile Equipment
Sec.
57.23000 Purpose and scope.
57.23001 Definitions.
57.23002 Written safety program.
57.23003 Requirements for written safety program.
57.23004 Record and inspection.
Sec. 57.23000 Purpose and scope.
This subpart requires operators to develop, implement, and update a
written safety program for surface mobile equipment to reduce the
number and rates of accidents, injuries, and fatalities. This subpart
applies to surface mobile equipment at surface areas of underground
metal and nonmetal mines. The purpose of this safety program is to
promote and support a positive safety culture and improve miners'
safety at the mine.
Sec. 57.23001 Definitions.
The following definitions apply in this subpart--
Responsible person means a person with authority and responsibility
to evaluate and update a written safety program for surface mobile
equipment.
Surface mobile equipment means wheeled, skid-mounted, track-
mounted, or rail-mounted equipment capable of moving or being moved,
and any powered equipment that transports people, equipment, or
materials, excluding belt conveyors, at surface areas of underground
metal and nonmetal mines.
Sec. 57.23002 Written safety program.
(a) Each operator shall develop and implement a written safety
program for surface mobile equipment that contains the elements in this
subpart, no later than July 17, 2024.
(b) Each operator shall designate at least one responsible person
to evaluate and update the written safety program, no later than July
17, 2024.
Sec. 57.23003 Requirements for written safety program.
(a) The operator shall develop and implement a written safety
program that includes actions the operator will take to:
(1) Identify and analyze hazards and reduce the resulting risks
related to the movement and the operation of surface mobile equipment;
(2) Develop and maintain procedures and schedules for routine
maintenance and non-routine repairs for surface mobile equipment;
(3) Identify currently available and newly emerging feasible
technologies that can enhance safety at the mine and evaluate whether
to adopt them; and
(4) Train miners and other persons at the mine necessary to perform
work to identify and address or avoid hazards related to surface mobile
equipment.
(b) The responsible person shall evaluate and update the written
safety program at least annually, or as mining conditions or practices
change that may adversely affect the health and safety of miners or
other persons, as accidents or injuries occur, or as surface mobile
equipment changes or modifications are made.
(c) The operator shall solicit input from miners and their
representatives in developing and updating the written safety program.
Sec. 57.23004 Record and inspection.
(a) The operator shall make the written safety program available
for inspection by authorized representatives of the Secretary and
provide a copy upon request.
(b) The operator shall make the written safety program available
for inspection by miners and their representatives and, at no cost,
provide a copy upon request.
SUBCHAPTER O--COAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
PART 77--MANDATORY SAFETY STANDARDS, SURFACE COAL MINES AND SURFACE
WORK AREAS OF UNDERGROUND COAL MINES
0
5. The authority citation for part 77 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811.
[[Page 87928]]
0
6. Add subpart V to part 77 to read as follows:
Subpart V--Safety Program for Surface Mobile Equipment
Sec.
77.2100 Purpose and scope.
77.2101 Definitions.
77.2102 Written safety program.
77.2103 Requirements for written safety program.
77.2104 Record and inspection.
Sec. 77.2100 Purpose and scope.
This subpart requires operators to develop, implement, and update a
written safety program for surface mobile equipment to reduce the
number and rates of accidents, injuries, and fatalities. This subpart
applies to surface mobile equipment at surface coal mines and surface
work areas of underground coal mines. The purpose of this safety
program is to promote and support a positive safety culture and improve
miners' safety at the mine.
Sec. 77.2101 Definitions.
The following definitions apply in this subpart--
Responsible person means a person with authority and responsibility
to evaluate and update a written safety program for surface mobile
equipment.
Surface mobile equipment means wheeled, skid-mounted, track-
mounted, or rail-mounted equipment capable of moving or being moved,
and any powered equipment that transports people, equipment, or
materials, excluding belt conveyors, at surface coal mines and surface
work areas of underground coal mines.
Sec. 77.2102 Written safety program.
(a) Each operator shall develop and implement a written safety
program for surface mobile equipment that contains the elements in this
subpart, no later than July 17, 2024.
(b) Each operator shall designate at least one responsible person
to evaluate and update the written safety program, no later than July
17, 2024.
Sec. 77.2103 Requirements for written safety program.
(a) The operator shall develop and implement a written safety
program that includes actions the operator will take to:
(1) Identify and analyze hazards and reduce the resulting risks
related to the movement and the operation of surface mobile equipment;
(2) Develop and maintain procedures and schedules for routine
maintenance and non-routine repairs for surface mobile equipment;
(3) Identify currently available and newly emerging feasible
technologies that can enhance safety at the mine and evaluate whether
to adopt them; and
(4) Train miners and other persons at the mine necessary to perform
work to identify and address or avoid hazards related to surface mobile
equipment.
(b) The responsible person shall evaluate and update the written
safety program at least annually, or as mining conditions or practices
change that may adversely affect the health and safety of miners or
other persons, as accidents or injuries occur, or as surface mobile
equipment changes or modifications are made.
(c) The operator shall solicit input from miners and their
representatives in developing and updating the written safety program.
Sec. 77.2104 Record and inspection.
(a) The operator shall make the written safety program available
for inspection by authorized representatives of the Secretary and
provide a copy upon request.
(b) The operator shall make the written safety program available
for inspection by miners and their representatives and, at no cost,
provide a copy upon request.
[FR Doc. 2023-27640 Filed 12-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4520-43-P