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