80 FR 10436 - Request for Information To Improve the Health and Safety of Miners and To Prevent Accidents in Underground Coal Mines
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 38 (February 26, 2015)
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 38 (February 26, 2015)
| Page Range | 10436-10441 | |
| FR Document | 2015-03982 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 38 (Thursday, February 26, 2015)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 10436-10441] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-03982] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Mine Safety and Health Administration 30 CFR Part 75 RIN 1219-AB85 Request for Information To Improve the Health and Safety of Miners and To Prevent Accidents in Underground Coal Mines AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor. ACTION: Request for information. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is requesting information on mine ventilation and roof control plans; atmospheric monitoring systems and new technology for remote monitoring systems; methods to suppress the propagation of coal dust explosions; and criteria and procedures for certification, recertification, and decertification of persons qualified to conduct mine examinations. These issues were raised in reports on the coal dust explosion that occurred at the Upper Big Branch Mine on April 5, 2010. After reviewing the recommendations in these reports and related National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health research, MSHA is seeking information and data that will help improve the health and safety of underground coal miners. Submitted information will assist MSHA in determining appropriate regulatory actions. DATES: Comments must be received by midnight Eastern Standard Time on April 27, 2015. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by ``RIN 1219-AB85'', by any of the following methods:Federal E-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments for Docket Number MSHA-2014-0029. Electronic mail: [email protected]. Include ``RIN 1219-AB85'' in the subject line of the message. Mail: MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia 22209- 3939. Hand Delivery/Courier: MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the 21st floor. Instructions: All submissions received must include the Agency name ``MSHA'' and Docket Number ``MSHA-2014-0029'' or ``RIN 1219-AB85.'' All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, under Docket Number MSHA-2014-0029, and on http://www.msha.gov/currentcomments.asp, including any personal information provided. Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or 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, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the 21st floor. [[Page 10437]] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sheila A. McConnell, Acting Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at [email protected] (email); 202-693-9440 (voice); or 202-693- 9441 (facsimile). These are not toll-free numbers. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Availability of Information MSHA maintains a mailing list that enables subscribers to receive an email notification when the Agency publishes rulemaking documents in the Federal Register. To subscribe, go to http://www.msha.gov/subscriptions/subscribe.aspx. I. Background On April 5, 2010, a coal dust explosion occurred at the Upper Big Branch Mine-South (UBB) in Montcoal, West Virginia. MSHA initiated an accident investigation on April 7, 2010 under the authority of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act). MSHA issued an accident investigation report on December 11, 2011, titled, ``A Report of Investigation, Fatal Underground Mine Explosion, April 5, 2010, Upper Big Branch Mine-South, Performance Coal Company, Montcoal, Raleigh County, West Virginia, ID No. 46-08436.'' In addition to MSHA's accident investigation report, MSHA announced on May 4, 2010, a separate internal review of MSHA's actions prior to the explosion at the Upper Big Branch Mine. On March 6, 2012, MSHA issued the Internal Review (IR) report of the Agency's enforcement actions titled ``Internal Review of MSHA's Actions at the Upper Big Branch Mine-South, Performance Coal Company, Montcoal, Raleigh County, West Virginia''. The IR report compared MSHA's actions with the requirements of the Mine Act and MSHA's standards, regulations, policies, and procedures. The report recommended changes to regulations and standards that would improve the health and safety of underground coal miners by protecting them from the hazards that caused or contributed to the explosion. The IR report included recommendations to improve regulations and standards regarding mine ventilation; atmospheric mine monitoring systems; rock dusting; and certification, re-certification, and decertification of persons certified to conduct mine examinations in underground coal mines. Both the IR and Accident Investigation (AI) reports recommended that the Assistant Secretary consider rulemaking to improve mine health and safety. The combined recommendations were listed in the IR report. Following the explosion at UBB, the Secretary of Labor, on April 16, 2010, requested that NIOSH independently assess MSHA's internal review of its enforcement actions at UBB. NIOSH identified and appointed a panel to conduct an independent assessment (the Independent Panel). On March 22, 2012, the Independent Panel issued its report titled ''An Independent Panel Assessment of an Internal Review of MSHA Enforcement Actions at the Upper Big Branch Mine South Requested by The Honorable Hilda L. Solis, Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor'' (IP Assessment). In its report, the Independent Panel recommended that MSHA address the technical deficiencies in current mining practices that could compromise safety. II. Information Request This request for information is based on recommendations in the AI, IR, and IP Assessment reports. MSHA seeks input from industry, labor, and other interested parties to assist the Agency in determining whether regulatory action is needed and, if so, what type of regulatory changes would be appropriate to improve health and safety in underground coal mines. The reports on the UBB mine explosion identified several areas where additional rulemaking could be used to improve health and safety in underground coal mines. In section A, MSHA is requesting information on issues related to the requirements for developing and implementing roof control and mine ventilation plans in underground coal mines. In section B, MSHA is requesting information on issues related to the use, calibration, and maintenance of atmospheric monitoring systems (AMS) and new technology for remote monitoring systems. In section C, MSHA is requesting information on whether specifications contained in the definition of rock dust could be changed to improve its effectiveness in suppressing the propagation of coal dust explosions. In section D, the Agency is seeking information on whether surface moisture should be excluded from the determination of total incombustible content (TIC) of mixed dust. In section E, MSHA is requesting information on mine operator experiences with the coal dust explosibility meter (CDEM), the cleanup program under 30 CFR 75.400-2, and rock dusting. MSHA is also requesting information on the experiences of mine operators who have used other methods of testing for the explosibility of the dust in their mines. In section F, the Agency is seeking information on the use of active and passive explosion barriers. Finally, in section G, MSHA is requesting information on criteria and procedures for certification, recertification, and decertification of certified persons. MSHA is particularly interested in information regarding persons who conduct examinations and tests in accordance with MSHA's ventilation standards. When responding, please address your comments to the topic and question number. For example, the response to section A. Requirements for Developing and Implementing Roof Control and Mine Ventilation Plans, Question 1, would be identified as ``A.1.'' Please explain the rationale supporting your views and, where possible, include specific examples to support your rationale. Provide sufficient detail in your responses to enable proper Agency review and consideration. Identify the information on which you rely and include applicable experiences, data, models, calculations, studies and articles, standard professional practices, availability of technology, and costs. MSHA invites comment in response to the specific questions posed below and encourages commenters to include any related cost and benefit data, and any specific issues related to the impact on small mines. A. Requirements for Developing and Implementing Roof Control and Mine Ventilation Plans MSHA standards require the submission and approval of roof control and ventilation plans prior to their implementation, but do not require the operator to designate a person to be responsible for the mine's plans. The IP Assessment recommended that mine operators hire in-house plan specialists who would be certified roof control and ventilation officers to oversee plan implementation and to coordinate day-to-day actions. MSHA is considering changes to regulatory requirements to improve roof control plans (30 CFR 75.220 and 75.223) and mine ventilation plans (30 CFR 75.370 and 75.371). These changes could add requirements that would provide mine operators, miners, and MSHA personnel with increased assurance that plans are developed, implemented, and maintained according to the conditions at the mine. These changes could improve roof control and ventilation plans, and in conjunction with additional requirements for mine monitoring, would give mine operators [[Page 10438]] information needed to evaluate mine conditions. To assist MSHA in determining how the ventilation and roof control standards could be improved, please respond to the following questions. 1. What health and safety benefit could result from requiring mine operators to designate a mine management employee, who is a credentialed professional, to be responsible for development and implementation of approved roof control and ventilation plans? 2. What knowledge, skills, abilities, or licensure would this credentialed professional need in order to develop, implement, and monitor roof control and ventilation plans? The following recommendations were made in MSHA's reports to improve the ventilation in underground coal mines: Consider rulemaking to require that the minimum quantity of air be at least 75,000 cubic feet per minute (cfm) reaching the working face of each longwall mechanized mining unit (MMU). Establish progressive increases in the minimum quantity of air according to the mine methane liberation rate or the established schedule for spot inspections at 103(i) mines, such as 15, 10, and 5- day spot inspections. A 103(i) mine is a mine that has experienced, within the last 5 years, an ignition or explosion of methane or other gases that resulted in a fatality or in a permanently disabling injury. Consider respirable dust compliance as an additional factor for increasing the intake air quantity approved in the ventilation plan. Consider rulemaking to require the use of equipment doors in lieu of permanent stoppings, or to control ventilation within an air course, subject to approval in the mine ventilation plan. To maintain the separation of air courses, consider rulemaking to require that all equipment doors installed in travelways use an interlock system to ensure that only one door can be opened at a time. 3. Please comment on the recommendation to increase the minimum quantity of air. What are the advantages, disadvantages, impact on miner health and safety, and costs associated with an increase in the minimum quantity of air for longwall mines? How could this minimum quantity of air be determined and where would it be measured? 4. What is the most effective way to control methane, oxygen, and respirable dust levels to assure the health and safety of miners? 5. Please comment on equipment doors: Their use, location, approval, advantages, disadvantages and impact on miner health and safety. Also comment on the use of equipment doors in travelways, including the use of an interlock system. What are the advantages, disadvantages, impact on miner health and safety, and costs of using interlock systems on equipment doors? B. Atmospheric Monitoring Systems and New Technology for Remote Monitoring Systems Atmospheric Monitoring Systems (AMS) are a reliable method for early detection of fires along belt conveyors and for monitoring several other mine-ventilation-related parameters. Hand-held and machine-mounted gas detectors are used extensively underground, primarily to monitor methane and oxygen concentrations. MSHA is exploring the expanded use of coordinated monitoring systems to monitor methane and carbon monoxide levels, air velocities and directions, pressure differentials, and other parameters at critical locations to help mine operators maintain effective ventilation and diagnose system failures or deficiencies. The following recommendations were in the IR report: Modify 30 CFR 75.342(a)(2) to require additional methane sensors to be installed along the longwall face and to be tied into an AMS for the mine. These sensors should be placed along the face at various distances and heights to aid in the detection of methane during normal mining and in the event of a methane inundation. These additional sensor locations should be approved by the District Manager in the mine ventilation plan; and Require an AMS to provide real-time monitoring of methane and carbon monoxide levels and airflow direction, and to record the quality and quantity of air at specific points in the mine. For example, monitor where air reversals are likely to impact the ventilation system, outby loading points, where air courses split, and at certain intervals along the belt. 6. Continuous remote monitoring systems, such as AMS and tube bundle systems, can be used to detect unexpected ventilation system changes or methane inundations. Please comment, including rationale, on whether and under what circumstances MSHA should require the use of a continuous remote monitoring system. Please include impact on miner health and safety, impact on mining method, and any other related impact. What would be the costs to add monitoring systems or to extend existing systems in mines? 7. Where should continuous remote monitoring systems be installed in underground coal mines? Please be specific as to locations and provide rationale, including the impact on miner health and safety. 8. Under what conditions should additional gas monitoring sensors and sensors that measure air velocity and direction be used to monitor the longwall face and its tailgate corner to minimize accumulations of methane, other gases, and dust? Where should these sensors be located? 9. What are the advantages, disadvantages, and costs of continuously monitoring the underground coal mine environment for accumulations of gases, air velocity, and airflow direction? 10. How could continuous remote monitoring technology be linked to communication and tracking technology to form an integrated monitoring system? Please explain. 11. How can integrated monitoring systems be linked to machine- mounted monitors? What are the advantages, disadvantages, impact on miner health and safety, and costs of integrated monitoring systems? 12. What types of continuous remote monitoring systems can continue to safely operate and function after an explosion, fire, or any other mine accident? How long can such systems operate after an explosion or fire, since power is likely to be deenergized due to the emergency? What can be done to improve the survivability and reliability of continuous remote monitoring systems after an explosion or fire? 13. What types of technologies exist to remotely determine methane- air mixtures and other gas, dust, and fume levels in bleeders and bleederless ventilation systems, other than traditional AMS and tube- bundle systems? Please be specific and note if this technology is practical and feasible. 14. MSHA is aware that fiber optic systems are being developed that would transmit data to a central location on the surface of the mine. Please provide system capabilities, specifications, and cost information on these systems, as well as any other relevant technologies. 15. If fiber optic technology is capable of operation when electrical power is deenergized underground, how long can such systems remain operable after power is deenergized? What is the maximum distance such technology is capable of transmitting data to the mine surface? [[Page 10439]] 16. Please describe how fiber optic technology can be used in areas of the mine that require the use of permissible or intrinsically safe equipment. C. Rock Dust Mine operators are required to use rock dust that meets the definition of rock dust in 30 CFR 75.2. This standard specifies that rock dust material be pulverized limestone, dolomite, gypsum, anhydrite, shale, adobe, or other inert material, preferably light colored. In addition, 100 percent of the particles must pass through a sieve having 20 meshes per linear inch and 70 percent or more must pass through a sieve having 200 meshes per linear inch. The definition specifies that rock dust particles, when wetted and dried, will not cohere to form a cake that is not dispersed into separate particles by a light blast of air. In addition, the definition specifies that rock dust must not contain more than 5 percent combustible matter or more than a total of 4 percent free and combined silica or, where the Secretary finds that such silica concentrations are not available, must not contain more than 5 percent of free and combined silica. MSHA has worked cooperatively with NIOSH on rock dust research and on the development and field testing of the CDEM. NIOSH completed development of the CDEM and field-tested it with MSHA's assistance beginning in December 2009. NIOSH researchers published a report, titled ``MSHA CDEM Survey and Results,'' that summarized the results of this CDEM field study (Harris et al., 2011). MSHA inspectors used the NIOSH-developed prototype CDEM in conjunction with routine dust compliance surveys (conducted under 30 CFR 75.403) to collect the data shown in the report. MSHA inspectors also collected rock dust samples as part of the CDEM field study. NIOSH analyzed the rock dust samples and reported in Hazard ID 16-- Non-Conforming Rock Dust (October 2011), that the investigation of rock dust revealed two significant concerns with the supply of rock dust used in U.S. mines: Insufficient quantity of particles finer than 200 mesh (75 [mu]m) and the tendency of rock dust to form a cake when wetted and subsequently dried. MSHA issued PIB No. P11-50 on October 27, 2011, titled ``Rock Dust Composition, 30 CFR 75.2'' that reiterated information contained in NIOSH Hazard ID 16 (October 2011). MSHA stated in PIB No. P11-50 that the particle size issue and the caking issue indicate a possible lack of product quality control. To assist MSHA in making determinations with respect to rock dust, please respond to the following questions. 17. What specific tests should be performed to monitor the quality of rock dust to assure that the rock dust will effectively suppress an explosion in the mine environment? 18. What materials produce the most effective rock dust? 19. What are the advantages, disadvantages, impact on miner health and safety, and costs of limiting rock dust to light-colored inert materials, such as limestone and dolomite? 20. Please provide information on the types of impurities that could degrade rock dust performance. What tests or methods can be used to detect the presence of impurities? 21. What particle size distribution for rock dust would most effectively inert coal dust? What should be the maximum particle size? What should be the minimum particle size? Please explain and provide the rationale for your answer. 22. Determination of fine particle size of rock dust by sieving may be complicated by static agglomeration. What test methods should be used to measure the size distribution of rock dust to ensure consistent quality? What are the advantages, disadvantages, and costs of these test methods? 23. How can the potential of rock dust to cake be minimized? Are objective and practical tests available to determine the caking potential of rock dust? If so, please explain and provide documentation. 24. Please provide information on how fine particles (less than 10 [mu]m) may increase the likelihood of caking in rock dust. 25. Can rock dust be treated with additives that would reduce caking? Would the additive enhance or diminish the ability of the rock dust particles to quench a coal dust explosion and, therefore, impact the effectiveness of the rock dust to inert coal dust? Please provide information on the chemical composition of any suggested additives, the quantities needed, costs, and potential impact on miner health and safety. If available, what areas of an underground coal mine would need to be treated with non-caking rock dust? Please explain and provide the rationale for your answer. 26. Applied rock dust must be dispersible to inert an explosion. What in-mine tests can be used to determine the caking resistance (i.e., dispersibility) of applied rock dust? 27. How does combustible material degrade the performance of rock dust? How should MSHA modify the existing specification in the definition of rock dust? Please explain and provide documentation. 28. How should MSHA modify the existing requirement for free and combined silica in the definition of rock dust? Please explain and provide documentation. 29. How can the respirable particle size fraction of rock dust, i.e., less than 10 [mu]m, be limited, while maintaining the effectiveness of the dust to suppress the propagation of a coal dust explosion? Please explain. D. Surface Moisture and Total Incombustible Content The IR report recommended that MSHA amend existing standards to exclude surface moisture from the determination of TIC. (See 30 CFR 75.403 and 75.403-1). In addition, Harris et al. (2010) recommended that surface moisture be excluded from the measurement of TIC due to the potential variability in moisture content of the combined coal dust, rock dust, and other dust within a mine. 30. What are the advantages, disadvantages, and costs of excluding surface moisture from the definition of TIC? E. Operator Experiences With the Coal Dust Explosibility Meter (CDEM), Cleanup Program, and Rock Dusting MSHA has worked cooperatively with NIOSH on the development and field testing of the CDEM. NIOSH completed development of the CDEM and field-tested it with MSHA's assistance beginning in December 2009. NIOSH researchers published a report, titled ``MSHA CDEM Survey and Results,'' that summarized the results of this CDEM field study (Harris et al., 2011). MSHA inspectors used the NIOSH-developed prototype CDEM in conjunction with routine dust compliance surveys (conducted under 30 CFR 75.403) to collect the data shown in the report. MSHA stated in the final rule on ``Maintenance of Incombustible Content of Rock Dust in Underground Coal Mines,'' published on June 21, 2011 (76 FR 35968, at 35972), that-- . . . [t]he CDEM is intended to be used by mine operators and MSHA as a screening tool inside the mine to assess the explosion hazard potential in real time and take prudent actions to mitigate the hazard. The CDEM is not intended to replace the current MSHA laboratory analysis of coal mine dust samples for incombustible content, but to serve as a supplemental device for enhancing mine safety through improved rock dusting practices. [[Page 10440]] In addition, the IR report recommended that MSHA should consider rulemaking to require mine operators to regularly determine the adequacy of rock dusting using a method approved by the Secretary. The IR report stated that this could be achieved by requiring mine operators to sample mine dust for analysis or conduct CDEM testing at sufficient locations and intervals to determine if any area of the mine needs re-dusting. The IR report further recommended that the rule should consider requirements for certification, recordkeeping (including a map of sample locations), and corrective actions similar to examination standards. In light of this recommendation, MSHA requests the following information from mine operators: 31. What experience do you have with CDEMs, including use, maintenance, calibration, and costs? Based on your experience, how can CDEMs be used to help prevent coal dust explosions? What benefits have you experienced? What limitations have you encountered? 32. To what extent are mine operators using other methods to assess explosibility (i.e., laboratory TIC or volumeter testing)? How long does it take to get results from these test methods? 33. What are the advantages, disadvantages, and costs of these methods? What are the benefits and limitations of each of these methods? 34. How often should mine operators test for explosibility? Where should mine operators test for explosibility in mines? 35. How should mine operators assess their rock dust applications? 36. What records should mine operators be required to retain to verify that they have tested for explosibility? The IR report also recommended that MSHA consider rulemaking to revise 30 CFR 75.402 to require the use of: High-pressure rock-dusting machines to continuously apply rock dust into the air stream at the tailgate end of the longwall face whenever cutting coal; and Rock-dusting machines to regularly apply rock dust at the outby edges of active pillar lines on retreating continuous mining machine sections and at approaches to inaccessible areas downwind of coal dust generating sources. In light of these recommendations, MSHA requests the following information from mine operators: 37. In what additional areas of underground coal mines should the operator apply rock dust continuously or regularly? 38. What conditions necessitate the reapplication of rock dust to previously treated areas? F. Active and Passive Explosion Barriers Used To Suppress the Propagation of a Coal Dust Explosion The IP Assessment recommended that MSHA determine the relative merits of applying passive or active explosion barriers in specific circumstances. Explosion barriers remove heat from an explosion by engulfing the area of the barrier in an incombustible cloud of inert material like rock dust or water. These barriers are not used in underground coal mines in the United States. However, other countries allow the use of explosion barriers in underground coal mines. These explosion barriers are designed to be activated by the pressure wave in front of a coal dust explosion. The barriers flood the area with either water or rock dust which renders any suspended coal dust inert (Cain 2003). Passive barriers quench coal dust explosions when the explosion shock wave traveling in advance of the explosion flame disturbs the barrier. Active barriers contain sensors that detect the approach of the flame and trigger a positive pressure system to flood the area with water or rock dust to quench the flame (Cain 2003). 39. What types of active or passive explosion barriers could be used and where could they be used in underground coal mines? How does the movement of equipment and personnel affect the effectiveness of explosion barriers to quench a coal dust explosion? 40. What are the advantages, disadvantages, impact on miner health and safety, and costs of installing and maintaining active and passive explosion barriers? G. Certification, Recertification, and Decertification of Persons Certified To Conduct Mine Examinations in Underground Coal Mines MSHA's standards at 30 CFR 75.360, 75.361, 75.362, and 75.364 require that preshift, on-shift, supplemental, and weekly examinations be performed by persons who have been certified by MSHA or a State. A certified person, defined in 30 CFR 75.2 and addressed in 30 CFR 75.100, is a person who has been certified as a mine foreman (mine manager), an assistant mine foreman (section foreman), or a preshift examiner (mine examiner). Under 30 CFR 75.100, a person can become certified through an MSHA-administered program or a State-administered program. A person must satisfy the criteria specified in 30 CFR 75.100 to obtain an MSHA certification. Most State certifications are conditional on age and mining experience, specified training, and an examination. The criteria for certification and the types of certification, however, vary across States. The IR report recommended that MSHA supplement the recent rulemaking on Examinations of Work Areas in Underground Coal Mines, published on April 6, 2012 (77 FR 20700), as follows: . . . to require federal certification requirements, procedures, and time limits for re-certification of certified persons (including mine superintendents). . . . [and] provide procedures and criteria for the revocation of certifications (decertification of certified persons) for certain violations, including knowing and willful violations, advance notice of inspections, making any false statement, and smoking or carrying smoking materials. In response to these recommendations, MSHA is considering changing existing certification criteria and establishing criteria and procedures for renewal, decertification, and recertification of persons certified under 30 CFR 75.100 to conduct mine examinations in underground coal mines. If your State administers a program to certify persons to conduct mine examinations in underground coal mines, please respond to the following questions: 41. What criteria and procedures does the State use for certifying persons to perform mine examinations? 42. If the State requires that certified persons renew their certifications, what procedures are used for a renewal of a certification? Does the State recognize or accept other State certifications? Please provide examples. 43. If the State also has a decertification program, what criteria and procedures are used to suspend or decertify a person's certification? What procedures are used to recertify a person after a suspension or decertification? 44. How does the State notify mine operators and other States that it has decertified or recertified a person to conduct mine examinations? What types of actions are taken by other States based on your State's decertification? In addition, MSHA requests the following information: 45. What criteria should a miner meet to be a certified person to conduct mine examinations under 30 CFR 75.100, e.g., minimum age, years of experience, education, knowledge, training, and other skills? 46. What criteria and procedures would you recommend for the [[Page 10441]] suspension or decertification (revocation) of a person's certification? What criteria and procedures would you recommend for recertification? Please, include time frames for recertification. 47. What are the advantages, disadvantages, and administrative costs of having uniform criteria and procedures for the certification, decertification, and recertification of persons to conduct mine examinations in underground coal mines? III. Request for Information Please provide any other data or information that you think would be useful to MSHA in evaluating the effectiveness of its regulations and standards as they relate to the recommendations included in the IR and AI reports and those contained in the IP Assessment report. List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 75 Coal mines, Mine safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Underground mining. Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811. Dated: February 23, 2015. Joseph A. Main, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health. [FR Doc. 2015-03982 Filed 2-25-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-43-P
![10436 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules
the Federal Register amend the Health PART 57—HEALTH INSURANCE explosions; and criteria and procedures
Insurance Providers Fee Regulations (26 PROVIDERS FEE for certification, recertification, and
CFR part 57) and serve as the text for decertification of persons qualified to
these proposed regulations. ■ Paragraph 1. The authority citation conduct mine examinations. These
for part 57 continues to read in part as issues were raised in reports on the coal
Special Analyses follows: dust explosion that occurred at the
It has been determined that these Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805; sec. 9010, Pub. Upper Big Branch Mine on April 5,
L. 111–148 (124 Stat. 119 (2010)). 2010. After reviewing the
proposed regulations are not a
recommendations in these reports and
significant regulatory action as defined * * * * * related National Institute for
in Executive Order 12866, as ■ Par. 2. Section 57.2 is amended by Occupational Safety and Health
supplemented by Executive Order revising paragraphs (b)(3) and (c)(3)(ii) research, MSHA is seeking information
13563. Therefore, a regulatory to read as follows: and data that will help improve the
assessment is not required. It also has health and safety of underground coal
§ 57.2 Explanation of terms.
been determined that section 553(b) of miners. Submitted information will
the Administrative Procedure Act (5 * * * * *
assist MSHA in determining appropriate
U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these (b) * * *
regulatory actions.
regulations, and because the regulation (3) [The text of proposed § 57.2(b)(3)
is the same as the text of § 57.2T(b)(3) DATES: Comments must be received by
does not impose a collection of midnight Eastern Standard Time on
information on small entities, the published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register]. April 27, 2015.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to * * * * *
(c) * * * identified by ‘‘RIN 1219–AB85’’, by any
section 7805(f) of the Code, these of the following methods:
regulations have been submitted to the (3) * * *
(ii) [The text of proposed • Federal E-Rulemaking Portal:
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
Business Administration for comment § 57.2(c)(3)(ii) is the same as the text of
§ 57.2T(c)(3)(ii) published elsewhere in on-line instructions for submitting
on its impact on small business. comments for Docket Number MSHA–
this issue of the Federal Register].
2014–0029.
Comments and Requests for a Public * * * * * • Electronic mail: zzMSHA-
Hearing ■ Par. 3. Section 57.10 is amended by
comments@dol.gov. Include ‘‘RIN 1219–
revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: AB85’’ in the subject line of the
Before the proposed regulations are
adopted as final regulations, § 57.10 Effective/applicability date. message.
consideration will be given to any * * * * * • Mail: MSHA, Office of Standards,
comments that are submitted timely to (b) [The text of proposed § 57.10(b) is Regulations, and Variances, 1100
the IRS as prescribed in this preamble the same as the text of § 57.10T(b) Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350,
published elsewhere in this issue of the Arlington, Virginia 22209–3939.
under the ADDRESSES heading. The
• Hand Delivery/Courier: MSHA,
Treasury Department and the IRS Federal Register].
Office of Standards, Regulations, and
request comments on all aspects of the John Dalrymple, Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard,
proposed regulations. All comments Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia,
Deputy Commissioner for Services and
will be available at www.regulations.gov Enforcement. between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
or upon request. A public hearing will [FR Doc. 2015–03945 Filed 2–23–15; 4:15 pm] Monday through Friday, except Federal
be scheduled if requested in writing by BILLING CODE 4830–01–P holidays. Sign in at the receptionist’s
any person that timely submits written desk on the 21st floor.
comments. If a public hearing is Instructions: All submissions received
scheduled, notice of the date, time, and must include the Agency name
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
place for the public hearing will be ‘‘MSHA’’ and Docket Number ‘‘MSHA–
published in the Federal Register. Mine Safety and Health Administration 2014–0029’’ or ‘‘RIN 1219–AB85.’’ All
comments received will be posted
Drafting Information
30 CFR Part 75 without change to http://
The principal author of these www.regulations.gov, under Docket
RIN 1219–AB85 Number MSHA–2014–0029, and on
proposed regulations is Rachel S. Smith,
IRS Office of the Associate Chief http://www.msha.gov/
Request for Information To Improve
Counsel (Passthroughs and Special currentcomments.asp, including any
the Health and Safety of Miners and To
Industries). However, other personnel personal information provided.
Prevent Accidents in Underground
Docket: For access to the docket to
from the Treasury Department and the Coal Mines
read background documents or
IRS participated in their development.
AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health comments received, go to http://
List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 57 Administration, Labor. www.regulations.gov or http://
ACTION: Request for information. www.msha.gov/currentcomments.asp.
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Health insurance, Reporting and Review comments in person at the
recordkeeping requirements. SUMMARY: The Mine Safety and Health Office of Standards, Regulations, and
Proposed Amendments to the Administration (MSHA) is requesting Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard,
information on mine ventilation and Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia,
Regulations
roof control plans; atmospheric between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 57 is monitoring systems and new technology Monday through Friday, except Federal
proposed to be amended as follows: for remote monitoring systems; methods Holidays. Sign in at the receptionist’s
to suppress the propagation of coal dust desk on the 21st floor.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:42 Feb 25, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26FEP1.SGM 26FEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_10474/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 10439
16. Please describe how fiber optic To assist MSHA in making How should MSHA modify the existing
technology can be used in areas of the determinations with respect to rock specification in the definition of rock
mine that require the use of permissible dust, please respond to the following dust? Please explain and provide
or intrinsically safe equipment. questions. documentation.
17. What specific tests should be 28. How should MSHA modify the
C. Rock Dust performed to monitor the quality of rock existing requirement for free and
Mine operators are required to use dust to assure that the rock dust will combined silica in the definition of rock
rock dust that meets the definition of effectively suppress an explosion in the dust? Please explain and provide
rock dust in 30 CFR 75.2. This standard mine environment? documentation.
specifies that rock dust material be 18. What materials produce the most 29. How can the respirable particle
pulverized limestone, dolomite, effective rock dust? size fraction of rock dust, i.e., less than
gypsum, anhydrite, shale, adobe, or 19. What are the advantages, 10 mm, be limited, while maintaining
other inert material, preferably light disadvantages, impact on miner health the effectiveness of the dust to suppress
colored. In addition, 100 percent of the and safety, and costs of limiting rock the propagation of a coal dust
particles must pass through a sieve dust to light-colored inert materials, explosion? Please explain.
having 20 meshes per linear inch and 70 such as limestone and dolomite?
20. Please provide information on the D. Surface Moisture and Total
percent or more must pass through a
types of impurities that could degrade Incombustible Content
sieve having 200 meshes per linear inch.
The definition specifies that rock dust rock dust performance. What tests or The IR report recommended that
particles, when wetted and dried, will methods can be used to detect the MSHA amend existing standards to
not cohere to form a cake that is not presence of impurities? exclude surface moisture from the
dispersed into separate particles by a 21. What particle size distribution for determination of TIC. (See 30 CFR
light blast of air. In addition, the rock dust would most effectively inert 75.403 and 75.403–1). In addition,
definition specifies that rock dust must coal dust? What should be the Harris et al. (2010) recommended that
not contain more than 5 percent maximum particle size? What should be surface moisture be excluded from the
combustible matter or more than a total the minimum particle size? Please measurement of TIC due to the potential
of 4 percent free and combined silica or, explain and provide the rationale for variability in moisture content of the
where the Secretary finds that such your answer. combined coal dust, rock dust, and
silica concentrations are not available, 22. Determination of fine particle size other dust within a mine.
must not contain more than 5 percent of of rock dust by sieving may be 30. What are the advantages,
free and combined silica. complicated by static agglomeration. disadvantages, and costs of excluding
What test methods should be used to surface moisture from the definition of
MSHA has worked cooperatively with
measure the size distribution of rock TIC?
NIOSH on rock dust research and on the
dust to ensure consistent quality? What
development and field testing of the E. Operator Experiences With the Coal
are the advantages, disadvantages, and
CDEM. NIOSH completed development Dust Explosibility Meter (CDEM),
costs of these test methods?
of the CDEM and field-tested it with 23. How can the potential of rock dust Cleanup Program, and Rock Dusting
MSHA’s assistance beginning in to cake be minimized? Are objective and
December 2009. NIOSH researchers MSHA has worked cooperatively with
practical tests available to determine the NIOSH on the development and field
published a report, titled ‘‘MSHA CDEM caking potential of rock dust? If so,
Survey and Results,’’ that summarized testing of the CDEM. NIOSH completed
please explain and provide development of the CDEM and field-
the results of this CDEM field study documentation.
(Harris et al., 2011). MSHA inspectors tested it with MSHA’s assistance
24. Please provide information on
used the NIOSH-developed prototype beginning in December 2009. NIOSH
how fine particles (less than 10 mm) may
CDEM in conjunction with routine dust researchers published a report, titled
increase the likelihood of caking in rock
compliance surveys (conducted under ‘‘MSHA CDEM Survey and Results,’’
dust.
30 CFR 75.403) to collect the data that summarized the results of this
25. Can rock dust be treated with
shown in the report. MSHA inspectors CDEM field study (Harris et al., 2011).
additives that would reduce caking?
also collected rock dust samples as part MSHA inspectors used the NIOSH-
Would the additive enhance or diminish
of the CDEM field study. developed prototype CDEM in
the ability of the rock dust particles to
NIOSH analyzed the rock dust conjunction with routine dust
quench a coal dust explosion and,
samples and reported in Hazard ID 16— compliance surveys (conducted under
therefore, impact the effectiveness of the
Non-Conforming Rock Dust (October 30 CFR 75.403) to collect the data
rock dust to inert coal dust? Please
2011), that the investigation of rock dust shown in the report.
provide information on the chemical
revealed two significant concerns with composition of any suggested additives, MSHA stated in the final rule on
the supply of rock dust used in U.S. the quantities needed, costs, and ‘‘Maintenance of Incombustible Content
mines: Insufficient quantity of particles potential impact on miner health and of Rock Dust in Underground Coal
finer than 200 mesh (75 mm) and the safety. If available, what areas of an Mines,’’ published on June 21, 2011 (76
tendency of rock dust to form a cake underground coal mine would need to FR 35968, at 35972), that—
when wetted and subsequently dried. be treated with non-caking rock dust? . . . [t]he CDEM is intended to be used by
MSHA issued PIB No. P11–50 on Please explain and provide the rationale mine operators and MSHA as a screening tool
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
October 27, 2011, titled ‘‘Rock Dust for your answer. inside the mine to assess the explosion
Composition, 30 CFR 75.2’’ that 26. Applied rock dust must be hazard potential in real time and take
reiterated information contained in prudent actions to mitigate the hazard. The
dispersible to inert an explosion. What CDEM is not intended to replace the current
NIOSH Hazard ID 16 (October 2011). in-mine tests can be used to determine MSHA laboratory analysis of coal mine dust
MSHA stated in PIB No. P11–50 that the the caking resistance (i.e., dispersibility) samples for incombustible content, but to
particle size issue and the caking issue of applied rock dust? serve as a supplemental device for enhancing
indicate a possible lack of product 27. How does combustible material mine safety through improved rock dusting
quality control. degrade the performance of rock dust? practices.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:42 Feb 25, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26FEP1.SGM 26FEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_10474/page/4.svg)
![10440 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules
In addition, the IR report 38. What conditions necessitate the CFR 75.100 to obtain an MSHA
recommended that MSHA should reapplication of rock dust to previously certification.
consider rulemaking to require mine treated areas? Most State certifications are
operators to regularly determine the conditional on age and mining
F. Active and Passive Explosion Barriers experience, specified training, and an
adequacy of rock dusting using a Used To Suppress the Propagation of a
method approved by the Secretary. The examination. The criteria for
Coal Dust Explosion certification and the types of
IR report stated that this could be
achieved by requiring mine operators to The IP Assessment recommended that certification, however, vary across
sample mine dust for analysis or MSHA determine the relative merits of States. The IR report recommended that
conduct CDEM testing at sufficient applying passive or active explosion MSHA supplement the recent
locations and intervals to determine if barriers in specific circumstances. rulemaking on Examinations of Work
any area of the mine needs re-dusting. Explosion barriers remove heat from an Areas in Underground Coal Mines,
The IR report further recommended that explosion by engulfing the area of the published on April 6, 2012 (77 FR
the rule should consider requirements barrier in an incombustible cloud of 20700), as follows:
for certification, recordkeeping inert material like rock dust or water. . . . to require federal certification
(including a map of sample locations), These barriers are not used in requirements, procedures, and time limits for
and corrective actions similar to underground coal mines in the United re-certification of certified persons (including
examination standards. States. However, other countries allow mine superintendents). . . . [and] provide
In light of this recommendation, the use of explosion barriers in procedures and criteria for the revocation of
underground coal mines. certifications (decertification of certified
MSHA requests the following persons) for certain violations, including
information from mine operators: These explosion barriers are designed
to be activated by the pressure wave in knowing and willful violations, advance
31. What experience do you have with notice of inspections, making any false
CDEMs, including use, maintenance, front of a coal dust explosion. The
statement, and smoking or carrying smoking
calibration, and costs? Based on your barriers flood the area with either water materials.
experience, how can CDEMs be used to or rock dust which renders any
suspended coal dust inert (Cain 2003). In response to these
help prevent coal dust explosions? What recommendations, MSHA is considering
benefits have you experienced? What Passive barriers quench coal dust
explosions when the explosion shock changing existing certification criteria
limitations have you encountered? and establishing criteria and procedures
32. To what extent are mine operators wave traveling in advance of the
explosion flame disturbs the barrier. for renewal, decertification, and
using other methods to assess recertification of persons certified under
explosibility (i.e., laboratory TIC or Active barriers contain sensors that
detect the approach of the flame and 30 CFR 75.100 to conduct mine
volumeter testing)? How long does it examinations in underground coal
take to get results from these test trigger a positive pressure system to
flood the area with water or rock dust mines.
methods? If your State administers a program to
33. What are the advantages, to quench the flame (Cain 2003).
39. What types of active or passive certify persons to conduct mine
disadvantages, and costs of these examinations in underground coal
methods? What are the benefits and explosion barriers could be used and
mines, please respond to the following
limitations of each of these methods? where could they be used in
questions:
34. How often should mine operators underground coal mines? How does the
41. What criteria and procedures does
test for explosibility? Where should movement of equipment and personnel the State use for certifying persons to
mine operators test for explosibility in affect the effectiveness of explosion perform mine examinations?
mines? barriers to quench a coal dust 42. If the State requires that certified
35. How should mine operators assess explosion? persons renew their certifications, what
their rock dust applications? 40. What are the advantages, procedures are used for a renewal of a
36. What records should mine disadvantages, impact on miner health certification? Does the State recognize or
operators be required to retain to verify and safety, and costs of installing and accept other State certifications? Please
that they have tested for explosibility? maintaining active and passive provide examples.
The IR report also recommended that explosion barriers? 43. If the State also has a
MSHA consider rulemaking to revise 30 G. Certification, Recertification, and decertification program, what criteria
CFR 75.402 to require the use of: Decertification of Persons Certified To and procedures are used to suspend or
• High-pressure rock-dusting decertify a person’s certification? What
Conduct Mine Examinations in
machines to continuously apply rock procedures are used to recertify a person
Underground Coal Mines
dust into the air stream at the tailgate after a suspension or decertification?
end of the longwall face whenever MSHA’s standards at 30 CFR 75.360, 44. How does the State notify mine
cutting coal; and 75.361, 75.362, and 75.364 require that operators and other States that it has
• Rock-dusting machines to regularly preshift, on-shift, supplemental, and decertified or recertified a person to
apply rock dust at the outby edges of weekly examinations be performed by conduct mine examinations? What types
active pillar lines on retreating persons who have been certified by of actions are taken by other States
continuous mining machine sections MSHA or a State. A certified person, based on your State’s decertification?
and at approaches to inaccessible areas defined in 30 CFR 75.2 and addressed In addition, MSHA requests the
downwind of coal dust generating in 30 CFR 75.100, is a person who has following information:
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
sources. been certified as a mine foreman (mine 45. What criteria should a miner meet
In light of these recommendations, manager), an assistant mine foreman to be a certified person to conduct mine
MSHA requests the following (section foreman), or a preshift examiner examinations under 30 CFR 75.100, e.g.,
information from mine operators: (mine examiner). Under 30 CFR 75.100, minimum age, years of experience,
37. In what additional areas of a person can become certified through education, knowledge, training, and
underground coal mines should the an MSHA-administered program or a other skills?
operator apply rock dust continuously State-administered program. A person 46. What criteria and procedures
or regularly? must satisfy the criteria specified in 30 would you recommend for the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:42 Feb 25, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26FEP1.SGM 26FEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_10474/page/5.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 10441
suspension or decertification use of this voluntary alternative work ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
(revocation) of a person’s certification? practice for federal leak detection and AGENCY
What criteria and procedures would you repair of fugitive emissions sources.
recommend for recertification? Please, EPA has evaluated the SIP revision and 40 CFR Part 62
include time frames for recertification. determined that it is consistent with the [EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0554; FRL–9923–34–
47. What are the advantages, federal LDAR regulations. EPA is Region 5]
disadvantages, and administrative costs approving this action under Section 110
of having uniform criteria and of the Clean Air Act. Approval of Other Solid Waste
procedures for the certification, Incinerator Units State Plan for
decertification, and recertification of DATES: Written comments should be Designated Facilities and Pollutants:
persons to conduct mine examinations received on or before March 30, 2015. Indiana
in underground coal mines? ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to AGENCY: Environmental Protection
III. Request for Information Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Agency.
Please provide any other data or Section (6PD–L), Environmental ACTION: Proposed rule.
information that you think would be Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
useful to MSHA in evaluating the
Comments may also be submitted Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve,
effectiveness of its regulations and
electronically or through hand delivery/ through direct final procedure, Indiana’s
standards as they relate to the
courier by following the detailed State Plan to control air pollutants from
recommendations included in the IR
instructions in the ADDRESSES section of ‘‘Other Solid Waste Incineration’’
and AI reports and those contained in
the direct final rule located in the rules (OSWI) Units. The Indiana Department
the IP Assessment report.
section of this Federal Register. of Environmental Management
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 75 submitted the State Plan on November
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 27, 2007, following the required public
Coal mines, Mine safety and health,
Reporting and recordkeeping Jennifer Huser, (214) 665–7347, process. The State Plan is consistent
requirements, Safety, Underground huser.jennifer@epa.gov. with Emission Guidelines promulgated
mining. by EPA on December 16, 2005. This
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
approval means that EPA finds that the
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811. final rules section of this Federal State Plan meets applicable Clean Air
Dated: February 23, 2015.
Register, EPA is approving the State’s Act requirements for OSWI units for
SIP submittal as a direct final rule which construction commenced on or
Joseph A. Main,
without prior proposal because the before December 4, 2004. Once effective,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety
and Health. Agency views this as a noncontroversial this approval also makes the State Plan
[FR Doc. 2015–03982 Filed 2–25–15; 8:45 am]
submittal and anticipates no adverse Federally enforceable.
comments. A detailed rationale for the DATES: Comments must be received on
BILLING CODE 4510–43–P
approval is set forth in the direct final or before March 30, 2015.
rule. If no relevant adverse comments ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
are received in response to this action identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY no further activity is contemplated. If OAR–2009–0554, by one of the
EPA receives relevant adverse following methods:
40 CFR Part 52 comments, the direct final rule will be • www.regulations.gov: Follow the
withdrawn and all public comments on-line instructions for submitting
[EPA–R06–OAR–2010–0611; FRL 9923–23–
Region 6]
received will be addressed in a comments.
subsequent final rule based on this • Email: nash.carlton @epa.gov.
Approval and Promulgation of proposed rule. EPA will not institute a • Fax: (312) 692–2543.
Implementation Plans; Texas; Revision second comment period. Any parties • Mail: Carlton T. Nash, Chief,
to Control of Air Pollution From interested in commenting on this action Integrated Air Toxics Section, Air
Volatile Organic Compounds; should do so at this time. Toxics and Assessment Branch (AT–
Alternative Leak Detection and Repair 18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
For additional information, see the Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Work Practice direct final rule which is located in the Chicago, Illinois 60604.
AGENCY: Environmental Protection rules section of this Federal Register. • Hand Delivery: Carlton T. Nash,
Agency (EPA). Dated: February 9, 2015. Chief, Integrated Air Toxics Section, Air
ACTION: Proposed rule. Ron Curry, Toxics and Assessment Branch (AT–
18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Regional Administrator, Region 6.
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a [FR Doc. 2015–03587 Filed 2–25–15; 8:45 am] Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries
Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) BILLING CODE 6560–50–P are only accepted during the Regional
revision for control of volatile organic Office normal hours of operation, and
compound (VOC) emissions from special arrangements should be made
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
fugitive sources that was submitted to for deliveries of boxed information. The
EPA on July 2, 2010. The SIP revision Regional Office official hours of
allows for a voluntary alternative work business are Monday through Friday,
practice to detect fugitive emission leaks 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal
using optical gas imaging instruments holidays.
under the EPA federal Leak Detection Please see the direct final rule which
and Repair (LDAR) requirements. The is located in the Rules section of this
EPA adopted through rulemaking the Federal Register for detailed
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:42 Feb 25, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26FEP1.SGM 26FEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_10474/page/6.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-18 13:05:17
Document Modified: 2015-12-18 13:05:17
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Request for information. | |
| Dates | Comments must be received by midnight Eastern Standard Time on April 27, 2015. | |
| Contact | Sheila A. McConnell, Acting Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at [email protected] (email); 202-693-9440 (voice); or 202-693- 9441 (facsimile). These are not toll-free numbers. | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 10436 | |
| RIN Number | 1219-AB85 | |
| CFR Associated | Coal Mines; Mine Safety and Health; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Safety and Underground Mining |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR