81 FR 36826 - Exposure of Underground Miners to Diesel Exhaust
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 110 (June 8, 2016)
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 110 (June 8, 2016)
| Page Range | 36826-36831 | |
| FR Document | 2016-13219 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 8, 2016)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 36826-36831] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-13219] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Mine Safety and Health Administration 30 CFR Parts 57, 70, 72, and 75 RIN 1219-AB86 [Docket No. MSHA-2014-0031] Exposure of Underground Miners to Diesel Exhaust AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor. ACTION: Request for information. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is requesting information and data on approaches to control and monitor miners' exposures to diesel exhaust. Epidemiological studies by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) have found that diesel exhaust exposure increases miners' risk of death due to lung cancer. In June 2012, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified diesel exhaust as a human carcinogen. Because of the carcinogenic health risk to miners from exposure to diesel exhaust and to prevent material impairment of miners' health, MSHA is reviewing the Agency's existing standards and policy guidance on controlling miners' exposures to diesel exhaust to evaluate the effectiveness of the protections now in place to preserve miners' health. DATES: Comments must be received or postmarked by midnight Eastern Standard Time on September 1, 2016. ADDRESSES: Submit comments and informational materials, identified by RIN 1219-AB86 or Docket No. MSHA-2014-0031, by one of the following methods:Federal E-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. Electronic Mail: [email protected]. Mail: MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 201 12th Street South, Arlington, Virginia 22202-5452. Hand Delivery or Courier: 201 12th Street South, 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 in Suite 4E401. Fax: 202-693-9441. Instructions: All submissions must include ``RIN 1219-AB86'' or ``Docket No. MSHA-2014-0031.'' Do not include personal information that you do not [[Page 36827]] want publicly disclosed; MSHA will post all comments without change to http://www.regulations.gov and http://arlweb.msha.gov/currentcomments.asp, including any personal information provided. Docket: For access to the docket to read comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or http://arlweb.msha.gov/currentcomments.asp. To read background documents, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Review the docket in person at MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 201 12th Street South, 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 in Suite 4E401. E-Mail Notification: To subscribe to receive an email notification when MSHA publishes rules in the Federal Register, go to http://www.msha.gov. 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: Table of Contents I. Background A. Regulatory History B. Recent Research C. Health Hazard Alerts D. Recent State Actions II. Information Request A. Non-Permissible, Light-Duty, Diesel-Powered Equipment in Underground Coal Mines B. Maintenance of Diesel-Powered Equipment in Underground Coal Mines and Recordkeeping Requirements C. Exhaust After-Treatment Technology D. Monitoring MNM Miners' Exposures to DPM E. Other Information I. Background A. Regulatory History 1. DPM in Underground Coal Mines On October 25, 1996, MSHA published a final rule establishing revised requirements for the approval of diesel engines and related components used in underground coal mines; requirements for coal mine operators' monitoring of diesel exhaust emissions; and safety standards for the use of diesel-powered equipment in underground coal mines (61 FR 55412). The rule required clean-burning engines on diesel-powered equipment and training for persons maintaining the equipment. The rule also required sufficient ventilating air where diesel-powered equipment is operated. On January 19, 2001, MSHA published a final rule (66 FR 5526) limiting diesel particulate matter (DPM) exposure in underground coal mines. This standard is based on laboratory analysis of engine exhaust. It requires that the exhaust of certain pieces of equipment be restricted to the following prescribed levels: Permissible equipment must not emit more than 2.5 grams per hour (g/hr) of DPM; Non-permissible heavy-duty equipment, as defined by 30 CFR 75.1908(a) and operated in underground areas of underground coal mines, must not emit more than 2.5 g/hr of DPM (30 CFR 72.501(c)); Non-permissible light-duty equipment, as defined by 30 CFR 75.1908(b), must not emit more than 5.0 g/hr of DPM (30 CFR 72.502(a)). These standards also require mine operators to use engineering controls to reduce DPM exposures of underground coal miners. Mine operators must provide annual training to all miners exposed to DPM and maintain an inventory of the mine's diesel-powered equipment. Under 30 CFR 72.502(b), non-permissible, light-duty, diesel-powered equipment must be deemed in compliance with 30 CFR 72.502(a) if it uses an engine that meets or exceeds the applicable Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) particulate matter emissions requirements. In promulgating its DPM rule, which allows more particulate emissions for light-duty equipment than for heavy-duty equipment, MSHA assumed that diesel engine manufacturers would comply with EPA standards and that, when replacing vehicles in the mine's light-duty fleet, mine operators would purchase newer (new or used) vehicles that met EPA emissions standards, thus accelerating the turnover to a newer generation of technology. MSHA expected a significant reduction in the amount of DPM emitted by the underground fleet as these cleaner engines replaced or supplemented older engines in underground coal mines. MSHA had considered establishing stricter standards for certain types of equipment and covering more light-duty equipment, but concluded that such actions would either be technologically or economically infeasible for the coal mining industry as a whole at that time. MSHA concluded that the introduction of newer and cleaner engines underground that met EPA standards, and the continued development of after-treatment and other control technologies, would allow additional reductions in DPM levels to become feasible for the industry as a whole. For this reason, MSHA's January 2001 DPM standards incorporated EPA's then-applicable standards for light-duty diesel engine emissions. In 2004, EPA phased in even lower emissions standards for light-duty diesel engines. All MSHA diesel equipment is classified as ``nonroad'' under EPA rules. EPA nonroad diesel engine regulations were structured as a 4- tiered progression. Each tier involved a phased-in lowering of emissions standards over several years based on the size (power) of the engine. EPA published Tier 1 standards on June 17, 1994 (59 FR 31306, 40 CFR part 89) for nonroad compression-ignition engines (which include diesel engines). Under these standards, for engines at and above 130 kilowatts (kW), emissions of particulate matter could not exceed .54 g/ kW and carbon monoxide could not exceed 11.4 g/kW. These standards were phased in by engine size for model years 1996 to 2000. In addition, all engines greater than or equal to 37 kW were subject to an oxides of nitrogen (NO X , consisting of NO and NO2 ) emissions limit of 9.2 g/kW-hr, phased in by engine size over model years 1998 through 2000 (59 FR 31341). However, EPA explicitly excluded engines regulated by MSHA. Id. at 31340. On October 23, 1998, EPA published Tier 1 DPM standards for nonroad compression-ignition engines less than 37 kW (50 hp), setting a 1.2 g/ kW-hr particulate matter limit phased in by engine size over model years 1999 and 2000. The rule also established a Tier 1 NOX limit of 14.6 g/kW-hr for engines 37 kW and above, phased in by engine size over model years 1996 through 2000. In addition, the rule required more stringent Tier 2 DPM standards for all nonroad diesel engines, ranging from 1.0 g/kW-hr for the smallest engines to .54 g/kW-hr for the largest engines, phased in by engine size over model years 2001 to 2006. Under the rule, Tier 3 DPM standards for engines 37 kW and above were the same as the Tier 2 standards, but for these engines Tier 3 introduced additional limits for other types of emissions (hydrocarbons plus NOX ). The rule also introduced Tier 3 standards for engines 37-560 kW for these same other types of emissions, phased in by engine size over model years 2006 through 2008 (40 CFR 89.112). MSHA-regulated engines continued to be exempted from the EPA rule. [[Page 36828]] On June 29, 2004, the EPA published a final rule introducing even lower Tier 4 emissions standards for new compression-ignition engines of all sizes. (69 FR 38958, 40 CFR 1039). This rule provided for ``interim'' Tier 4 standards applicable to engines for model years 2014 and earlier and final Tier 4 standards applicable to model years after the 2014 model year. Based on engine size, the final standards set particulate matter limits of .04 to .40 g/kW-hr, NOX limits of .40 to 3.5 g/kW-hr, and carbon monoxide limits of 3.5 to 6.6 g/kW- hr. The final standards also imposed lower hydrocarbon limits. 40 CFR 1039.101. Again, MSHA-regulated engines were explicitly excluded from these standards. 40 CFR 1039.5(c). Tier 4 engines were expected to have 90 percent lower DPM emissions than the same types of engines under Tier 3 standards (69 FR 38958, 40 CFR 1039). 2. DPM in Underground Metal and Nonmetal Mines In 2001, MSHA published a final rule establishing new health standards for underground metal and nonmetal mines that use equipment powered by diesel engines (30 CFR part 57). This rule established a concentration limit for DPM and required mine operators to use engineering and work practice controls to reduce DPM to that limit. Operators were required to comply in accordance with a phase-in period, with the final limit to be in effect by January 20, 2006. In the rule, MSHA provided operators with the opportunity to obtain a special extension if engineering and work practice controls that would reduce a miner's personal exposure to the final exposure limit could not be implemented by the deadline due to technological constraints. This extension opportunity did not apply to newer mines. MSHA published another final rule (70 FR 32868; June 6, 2005) that replaced the concentration limit for DPM exposures of MNM miners from a total carbon (TC) permissible exposure limit (PEL) to a comparable elemental carbon (EC) PEL. This was not intended to be a substantive change to the exposure limits; rather, MSHA believed that EC renders a more accurate measure of DPM exposure than does TC. The first phase of the PEL reduction would have required a PEL of 308 micrograms of EC per cubic meter of air (308EC [mu]g/m\3\), effective on May 20, 2006. After publishing this 2005 rule, however, MSHA found that the engineering applications and related technological implementation issues were more complex and extensive than previously thought. In response, the Agency published a proposed rule (70 FR 53280; September 7, 2005) seeking specific comments and data on an appropriate conversion factor for the final DPM limit from TC to EC and related technological implementation issues. On May 18, 2006, MSHA published a final rule (71 FR 28924) that reverted back to using TC to measure DPM exposure. This rule phased-in a final DPM PEL of 160 micrograms of TC per cubic meter of air (160TC [mu]g/m\3\) over a two-year period. MSHA believed that the industry as a whole was capable of attaining this DPM PEL within the timeframes established using existing DPM control methods and not requiring the development of new technologies. MSHA stated that the development of high temperature disposable diesel particulate filter (HTDPF) systems would fill a critical gap in available filter technology because they demonstrated high filtration efficiency for EC, and did not increase NO2 emissions. MSHA also anticipated that production of biodiesel fuel would increase dramatically, making it easier for mine operators to gain access to a reliable supply of this alternative fuel. In addition, MSHA anticipated that EPA-compliant engines along with other engineering and administrative controls would enable the underground MNM mining industry as a whole to resolve lingering implementation challenges relating to the 160TC [mu]g/m\3\ DPM final exposure limit. In the May 18, 2006 final rule, MSHA also: (1) Finalized provisions addressing medical evaluation and transfer of miners who are unable to wear respirators for medical reasons; (2) committed the Agency to proposing a rule in the near future to convert the DPM limit from TC to EC; (3) deleted the provision that restricts newer mines from applying for an extension of time in which to meet the final concentration limit; and (4) addressed technological and economic feasibility issues and the costs and benefits of the rule. 30 CFR part 57. In accordance with the phase-in schedule, the DPM PEL was reduced to 350TC [micro]g/m\3\ effective January 20, 2007. The final limit of 160TC [micro]g/m\3\ became effective on May 20, 2008. On May 20, 2008 (73 FR 29058), MSHA published a Federal Register document announcing that it had decided not to engage in rulemaking to convert the TC limit to a comparable EC limit. This decision was based on MSHA's assessment that the latest available scientific evidence regarding the variability of the TC to EC ratio, at levels below 230 [micro]g TC, was insufficient to suggest an appropriate conversion factor. Because the Agency could not support an appropriate EC limit, MSHA's existing DPM standard presently remains at 160TC [micro]g/m\3\. The existing standards are based on a miner's personal exposure to DPM and specify that, in an underground MNM mine, such exposure must not exceed an average 8-hour equivalent, full-shift airborne concentration of 160 micrograms of total carbon (TC) per cubic meter of air (160TC [micro]g/m\3\) when measured as an 8-hour, time- weighted average concentration (TWA8 ). 30 CFR 57.5060(b)(3). These standards require mine operators to use engineering and/or workplace controls to reduce miners' exposures to a level as low as feasible and, where controls do not reduce exposure to the PEL or below, to supplement controls with respiratory protection. 30 CFR 57.5060(d). These standards also provide that a physician or other licensed health care professional conduct a medical evaluation of miners to determine the miner's ability to wear respiratory protection. 30 CFR 57.5060(d)(3). B. Recent Research The National Cancer Institute (NCI) (Silverman et al.) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) (Attfield et al.) completed the Diesel Exhaust in Miners Study in March 2012. This epidemiological study included 12,315 workers from eight nonmetal mining facilities (three potash, three trona, one limestone, and one salt (halite) facility) located in Ohio, Missouri, New Mexico, and Wyoming. The study was conducted to determine whether breathing diesel exhaust could lead to lung cancer and other health outcomes. Two evaluations of this study are published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, as follows: D. Silverman et al. (2012). ``The Diesel Exhaust in Miners Study: A Nested Case-Control Study of Lung Cancer and Diesel Exhaust.'' Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 104(11):855-68. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djs034 M. Attfield et al. (2012). ``The Diesel Exhaust in Miners Study: A Cohort Mortality Study with Emphasis on Lung Cancer.'' Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 104(11):869-83. doi: 10.1093/jnci/ djs035 Silverman et al. concluded that diesel exhaust exposure may cause lung cancer in humans and may represent a potential public health burden. Attfield et al. concluded that diesel exhaust increases the risk of death from lung cancer and has important public health implications. Both the case-control study (Silverman et al.) and the mortality [[Page 36829]] study (Attfield et al.) showed a strong relationship between the levels of exposure to diesel exhaust and risk of death from lung cancer. In both studies, the relationship between lung cancer risk and diesel exhaust exposure remained after controlling for smoking and other lung cancer risk factors. The death rates were about three to five times greater for workers with the highest exposures to diesel exhaust than for workers who had the lowest exposures. On June 12, 2012, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) \1\ concluded that there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans from diesel exhaust exposure to upgrade its classification of diesel exhaust from ``probably carcinogenic'' to ``carcinogenic to humans''.\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization, Press Release No. 213, ``IARC: Diesel Engine Exhaust Carcinogenic,'' June 12, 2012. \2\ International Agency for Research on Cancer, ``Carcinogenicity of Diesel-Engine and Gasoline-Engine Exhausts and Some Nitroarenes,'' IARC Monographs, Volume 105, World Health Organization, 2013. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In November 2015, the Health Effects Institute \3\ completed its evaluation of recent epidemiological evidence for assessing the risk of lung cancer from exposure to diesel exhaust. The evaluation concluded that the Diesel Exhaust in Miners Study and the Trucking Industry Particle Study were ``well designed and carefully conducted, embodying the attributes of epidemiological studies that are considered important for quantitative risk assessment.'' \4\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ The Health Effects Institute is an independent, non-profit research institute funded jointly by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and industry to provide credible, high quality science on air pollution and health for air quality decisions. HEI sponsors do not participate in the selection, oversight, or review of HEI science, and HEI's reports do not necessarily represent their views. \4\ HEI Press Release, ``New Report Examines Latest Studies of Lung Cancer Risk in Workers Exposed to Exhaust from Older Diesel Engines,'' November 24, 2015. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C. Health Hazard Alerts Following the IARC classification of diesel exhaust as a human carcinogen, MSHA issued two Health Hazard Alerts: one on diesel exhaust and DPM in underground coal and MNM mines, and one on nitrogen dioxide (NO2 ) emissions in underground coal mines. The first Health Hazard Alert was issued in partnership with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) on January 10, 2013. It provided information about diesel exhaust and DPM in underground coal and MNM mines, occupations with potential exposure, the health hazards of exposure, engineering and workplace controls, respiratory protection, and the standards in place to protect miners from exposure. MSHA issued a second Health Hazard Alert on August 6, 2013. The alert reinforced the dangers of platinum-based particulate filters as a source of increased concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO2 ) in underground coal mines. MSHA had addressed these dangers before. On May 16, 2011, MSHA had published a Program Information Bulletin NO. P11-38, Re-Issue of P02-04--Potential Health Hazard Caused by Platinum- Based Catalyzed Diesel Particulate Matter Exhaust Filters, informing mine operators of a potential health hazard caused by then-available platinum-based catalyzed diesel particulate matter (DPM) exhaust filters for diesel-powered equipment. The PIB advised that the use of these filters may result in increased production of nitrogen dioxide (NO2 ) gas, as compared to NO2 emissions produced by engines operating without these filters, causing miners to be exposed to increased concentrations of NO2 . D. State Actions West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio require diesel-powered equipment used in underground coal mines to include an exhaust emissions control and conditioning system that meets the following requirements:DPM emissions that do not exceed an average concentration of 0.12 milligrams of DPM per cubic meter of air (mg/m\3\) when diluted by 100 percent (West Virginia and Ohio) or by 50 percent (Pennsylvania) of the MSHA Part 7 approved ventilation rate for that diesel engine. An oxidation catalyst or other gaseous emissions control device capable of reducing undiluted carbon monoxide (CO) emissions to 100 parts per million (ppm) or less under all conditions of operation within the normal engine operating temperature range. A DPM filter capable of reducing DPM concentrations by at least 75 percent (West Virginia) or by an average of 95 percent (Pennsylvania) or to a level that does not exceed an average concentration of 0.12 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m\3\) of air when diluted by 100 percent of the MSHA Part 7 approved ventilation rate for that diesel engine (Ohio). In addition, West Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania limit ambient concentrations of exhaust gases to a ceiling of 35 parts per million (ppm) for carbon monoxide (CO) and 3 ppm for nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ). West Virginia and Pennsylvania also limit ambient concentrations of nitric oxide (NO) to 25 ppm. If the concentrations of these emissions exceed 75 percent of these limits, these states require mine operators to make changes to the use of diesel equipment, mine ventilation, or other modifications to the mining process. All three states require mine operators to keep written records of emissions tests, pre-operational examinations, and maintenance and repairs for all diesel equipment operated underground. These states also require specific information to be recorded that MSHA does not require, e.g., the results of testing the engine at full throttle against the brakes with loaded hydraulics (engine speed tests), operating hour meter hours, total intake restriction, total exhaust back pressure, cooled exhaust gas temperature, coolant temperature, engine oil pressure, and engine oil temperature. II. Information Request MSHA requests information and data on the effectiveness of the existing standards in controlling miners' exposures to diesel exhaust, including DPM. MSHA specifically requests input from industry, labor, and other interested parties on approaches that may enhance control of DPM and diesel exhaust exposures to improve protections for miners in underground coal and MNM mines. When responding--Address your comments to the topic and question number. For example, the response to questions regarding underground coal mines, Question 1, would be identified as ``A.1''. Explain the rationale supporting your views and, where possible, include specific examples. 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. Non-Permissible, Light-Duty, Diesel-Powered Equipment in Underground Coal Mines It has been 14 years since MSHA promulgated its DPM rule for [[Page 36830]] underground coal mines. At that time, MSHA had estimated a service life of 10 years for non-permissible, light-duty, diesel-powered equipment. Based on this estimate, MSHA expects that all the non-permissible, light-duty, diesel-powered equipment in use at that time has now been replaced with equipment having newer and cleaner diesel engines. MSHA's latest diesel inventory for underground coal mines indicates that this newer light-duty equipment makes up about 66 percent of the total existing diesel-powered fleet. MSHA believes that this newer equipment has resulted in a decrease in the overall levels of diesel emissions in underground coal mines. Diesel engine manufacturers have integrated a variety of advanced technologies into new engine designs to reduce engine emissions to meet EPA requirements. To assist MSHA in determining whether it is feasible to lower the emissions limits for non-permissible, light-duty, diesel-powered equipment to 2.5 g/hr of DPM or less, please respond to the following questions. For each response, please provide data, the specific type of equipment, manufacturer, engine type, filter type, level of DPM, and comments that support your response. 1. Is there evidence that non-permissible, light-duty, diesel- powered equipment currently being operated in underground mines emits 2.5 g/hr of DPM or less? If so, please provide this evidence. 2. What administrative, engineering, and technological challenges would the coal mining industry face in meeting a 2.5 g/hr DPM emissions level for non-permissible, light-duty, diesel-powered equipment? 3. What costs would the coal mining industry incur to lower emissions of DPM to 2.5 g/hr or less on non-permissible, light-duty diesel-powered equipment? What are the advantages, disadvantages of requiring that light-duty diesel-powered equipment emit no more than 2.5 g/hr of DPM? 4. What percentage of non-permissible, light-duty, diesel-powered equipment operating underground does not meet the current EPA emissions standards? 5. What modifications could be applied to non-permissible, light- duty, diesel-powered equipment to meet current EPA emissions standards? What percentage of this equipment could not be modified to meet current EPA emissions standards? If these are specific types of equipment, please list the manufacturers and model numbers. 6. What are the advantages, disadvantages, and costs associated with requiring all non-permissible, light-duty, diesel-powered equipment operating in underground coal mines to meet current EPA emissions standards? Please be specific and include the rationale for your response. 7. West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio limit diesel equipment in the outby areas of underground coal mines based on the air quantity approved on the highest ventilation plate. What are the advantages, disadvantages, and costs of MSHA adopting such an approach? B. Maintenance of Diesel-Powered Equipment in Underground Coal Mines and Recordkeeping Requirements Performing routine preventive maintenance of diesel engines helps ensure that the engines are maintained in approved condition. Under 30 CFR 75.1914(f), all diesel-powered equipment must be examined and tested weekly in accordance with approved checklists and manufacturers' maintenance manuals. Under 30 CFR 75.1914(g), diesel-powered equipment approved under 30 CFR part 36 and non-permissible, heavy-duty, diesel- powered equipment in underground coal mines are tested and evaluated on a weekly basis in accordance with mine operator-developed standard operating procedures. These procedures must provide for carbon monoxide sampling; carbon monoxide concentration must not exceed 2500 parts per million. 8. What would be the advantages, disadvantages, safety and health benefits, and costs of testing non-permissible, light-duty, underground diesel-powered equipment on a weekly basis for carbon monoxide as required for permissible diesel-powered equipment and non-permissible, heavy-duty, diesel-powered equipment? 9. Reducing the emissions of nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) is one way that engine manufacturers can control particulate production indirectly. What are the advantages, disadvantages, and costs of expanding exhaust emissions tests to include NO and NO2 to determine the effectiveness of emissions controls in underground coal mines? Please provide data and comments that support your response. 10. Should MSHA require that diagnostics system tests include engine speed (testing the engine at full throttle against the brakes with loaded hydraulics), operating hour meter, total intake restriction, total exhaust back pressure, cooled exhaust gas temperature, coolant temperature, engine oil pressure, and engine oil temperature, as required by some states? Why or why not? 11. What would be the advantages, disadvantages, and costs associated with requiring additional records to document the testing and maintenance of diesel-powered equipment in underground coal mines, such as the testing described above? Please be specific and include the rationale for your response. 12. If your mine is in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, or Ohio, what is your experience with the resources expended to keep testing records? How have these records been used, e.g., have you analyzed the records for trends? Have you made any changes in the use of the diesel-powered equipment, emissions controls, or mine ventilation based on the records of emissions testing? If so, please provide examples. 13. Please provide information related to additional training requirements for persons who operate and maintain diesel equipment. Please be specific on the types of training required, time associated with training, and additional safety and health benefits provided. C. Exhaust After-Treatment and Engine Technologies Options for reducing diesel exhaust emissions that are available include integration of advanced technologies into new engine designs and exhaust after-treatment systems. Reduction of diesel exhaust emissions prior to their release into the mine environment is an effective strategy used to prevent or reduce exposure of underground miners to diesel exhaust. The underground coal and MNM mining industries use exhaust after-treatment technology to control and reduce DPM and gaseous emissions from the existing fleet of diesel-powered equipment. While existing DPM standards provide for flexibility of controls to reach the required limit (i.e., controls that reduce engine emissions), MSHA expected that most operators would use hot gas (ceramic) filters to comply. MSHA is requesting information on the types and effectiveness of exhaust after-treatment technologies used in underground mines. Please describe some best practices for selecting and using after-treatment devices. 14. What exhaust after-treatment technologies are currently used on diesel-powered equipment? What are the costs associated with acquiring and maintaining these after-treatment technologies and by how much did they reduce DPM emissions? How durable and reliable are after-treatment technologies and how often should these technologies be replaced? Please be specific and include examples and the rationale for your response. [[Page 36831]] 15. What are the advantages, disadvantages, and relative costs of using DPM filters capable of reducing DPM concentrations by at least 75 percent or by an average of 95 percent or to a level that does not exceed an average concentration of 0.12 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/ m\3\) of air when diluted by 100 percent of the MSHA Part 7 approved ventilation rate for that diesel engine? How often do the filters need to be replaced? 16. What sensors (e.g. ammonia, nitrogen oxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2 )) are built into the after-treatment devices used on the diesel-powered equipment? 17. Are integrated engine and exhaust after-treatment systems used to control DPM and gaseous emissions in the mining industry? If so, please describe the costs associated with acquiring and maintaining integrated systems, and the reduction in DPM emissions produced. 18. What are the advantages, disadvantages, and relative costs of requiring that all light-duty diesel-powered equipment be equipped with high-efficiency DPM filters? As discussed above, on June 29, 2004, EPA adopted Tier 4 diesel engine standards. These standards are performance-based and technology- neutral in the sense that manufacturers are responsible for determining which emissions control technologies will be needed to meet the requirements. Engine manufacturers will produce new engines with advanced emissions control technologies to comply with Tier 4 emissions standards. Exhaust emissions from these engines are expected to decrease by more than 90 percent. 19. In the mining industry, are operators replacing the engines on existing equipment with Tier 4i (interim) or Tier 4 engines? If so, please specify the type of equipment (make and model) and engine size and tier. Please indicate how much it costs to replace the engine (parts and labor). 20. What types of diesel equipment purchased new for use in the mining industry is powered by Tier 4i or Tier 4 engines? What types of diesel-powered equipment, purchased used for use in the mining industry, are powered by Tier 3, Tier 4i or Tier 4 engines? 21. Are Tier 4i or Tier 4 engines used in underground mines equipped with diesel particulate filter (DPF) systems (e.g., advanced diesel engines with integrated after-treatment systems)? Please provide specific examples. 22. How long have Tier 4i or Tier 4 engines been in use in the mining industry and what additional cost is associated with maintaining equipment equipped with these engines? 23. What percentage of underground coal mines' total diesel equipment inventory is equipped with Tier 4i or Tier 4 engines? D. Monitoring MNM Miners' Exposures to DPM Under the existing standards, MSHA uses total carbon (TC) measurements as a surrogate for DPM when determining MNM miners' DPM exposures. 24. MSHA requests information on alternative surrogates, other than TC, to estimate a miner's DPM exposure. What is the surrogate's limit of detection and what are potential interferences in a mine environment? 25. What are the advantages, disadvantages, and relative costs for using the alternative surrogate to determine a MNM miner's exposure to DPM? Please be specific and include the rationale for your response. 26. MSHA requests information on advances in sampling and analytical technology and other methods for measuring a MNM miner's DPM exposure that may allow for a reduced exposure limit. E. MNM Miners' Personal Exposure Limit (PEL) MSHA analyzed its sampling data from 2006 (when the final PEL was published) to 2015, and found that the average exposures of MNM miners decreased by 57 percent from 253TC to 109TC [mu]g/m\3\ in MNM mines. Further analysis of the data revealed that approximately 63 percent of the mines sampled had average exposures below 100TC [mu]g/m\3\ in 2015 and 75 percent of the mines sampled have average exposures below 122TC [mu]g/m\3\. Overall, 50 percent of the mines sampled have average exposures between 48TC and 122TC [mu]g/m\3\. For operators who have had success in reducing exposures below the existing standard, please describe the best practices that you have used to reduce controls. MSHA intends to share this information with the underground metal and nonmetal mining community. 27. What existing controls were most effective in reducing exposures since 2006? Are these controls available and applicable to all MNM mines? 28. Based on MSHA's data, MNM miners' average exposures are well below the existing standard of 160TC [mu]g/m\3\. What are the technological challenges and relative costs of reducing the DPM exposure limit? F. Other Information Please provide any other data or information that may be useful to MSHA in evaluating miners' exposures to harmful diesel exhaust emissions, including the effectiveness of existing control mechanisms for reducing harmful diesel emissions and limiting miners' exposures to harmful diesel exhaust emissions. Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811, 813(h). Joseph A. Main, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health. [FR Doc. 2016-13219 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4520-43-P
![36826 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 2016 / Proposed Rules
safety and health, Reporting and year; shall make the records available DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
recordkeeping requirements. for inspection by authorized
representatives of the Secretary and the Mine Safety and Health Administration
Joseph A. Main,
representatives of miners; and shall
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety provide these representatives a copy on 30 CFR Parts 57, 70, 72, and 75
and Health.
request. RIN 1219–AB86
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, and under the authority of the PART 57—SAFETY AND HEALTH [Docket No. MSHA–2014–0031]
Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of STANDARDS—UNDERGROUND
1977, as amended by the Mine METAL AND NONMETAL MINES Exposure of Underground Miners to
Improvement and New Emergency Diesel Exhaust
Response Act of 2006, MSHA is ■ 3. The authority citation for part 57
continues to read as follows: AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health
proposing to amend chapter I of title 30 Administration, Labor.
of the Code of Federal Regulations as Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811.
ACTION: Request for information.
follows: ■ 4. Revise § 57.18002 to read as
follows: SUMMARY: The Mine Safety and Health
PART 56—SAFETY AND HEALTH Administration (MSHA) is requesting
STANDARDS—SURFACE METAL AND § 57.18002 Examination of working places. information and data on approaches to
NONMETAL MINES (a) A competent person designated by control and monitor miners’ exposures
the operator shall examine each working to diesel exhaust. Epidemiological
■ 1. The authority citation for part 56
place at least once each shift, before studies by the National Institute for
continues to read as follows:
miners begin work in that place, for Occupational Safety and Health
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811. conditions that may adversely affect (NIOSH) and the National Cancer
■ 2. Revise § 56.18002 to read as safety or health. Institute (NCI) have found that diesel
follows: (1) The operator shall promptly notify exhaust exposure increases miners’ risk
miners in any affected areas of any of death due to lung cancer. In June
§ 56.18002 Examination of working places. adverse conditions found that may 2012, the International Agency for
(a) A competent person designated by adversely affect safety or health and Research on Cancer (IARC) classified
the operator shall examine each working promptly initiate appropriate action to diesel exhaust as a human carcinogen.
place at least once each shift, before correct such conditions. Because of the carcinogenic health risk
miners begin work in that place, for (2) Conditions noted by the person to miners from exposure to diesel
conditions that may adversely affect conducting the examination that may exhaust and to prevent material
safety or health. present an imminent danger shall be impairment of miners’ health, MSHA is
(1) The operator shall promptly notify brought to the immediate attention of reviewing the Agency’s existing
miners in any affected areas of any the operator who shall withdraw all standards and policy guidance on
adverse conditions found that may persons from the area affected (except controlling miners’ exposures to diesel
adversely affect safety or health and persons referred to in section 104(c) of exhaust to evaluate the effectiveness of
promptly initiate appropriate action to the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act the protections now in place to preserve
correct such conditions. of 1977) until the danger is abated. miners’ health.
(2) Conditions noted by the person (b) A record of each examination shall DATES: Comments must be received or
conducting the examination that may be made and the person conducting the
present an imminent danger shall be postmarked by midnight Eastern
examination shall sign and date the Standard Time on September 1, 2016.
brought to the immediate attention of record before the end of the shift for
the operator who shall withdraw all ADDRESSES: Submit comments and
which the examination was made.
persons from the area affected (except informational materials, identified by
(1) The record shall include the
persons referred to in section 104(c) of RIN 1219–AB86 or Docket No. MSHA–
locations of all areas examined and a
the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act 2014–0031, by one of the following
description of each condition found that
of 1977) until the danger is abated. methods:
may adversely affect the safety or health • Federal E-Rulemaking Portal:
(b) A record of each examination shall of miners.
be made and the person conducting the http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
(2) The record also shall include: on-line instructions for submitting
examination shall sign and date the (i) A description of the corrective
record before the end of the shift for comments.
action taken, • Electronic Mail: zzMSHA-
which the examination was made. (ii) The date that the corrective action
(1) The record shall include the comments@dol.gov.
was taken, and • Mail: MSHA, Office of Standards,
locations of all areas examined and a (iii) The name of the person who
description of each condition found that Regulations, and Variances, 201 12th
made the record of the corrective action Street South, Arlington, Virginia 22202–
may adversely affect the safety or health and the date the record of the corrective
of miners. 5452.
action was made. • Hand Delivery or Courier: 201 12th
(2) The record also shall include:
(3) The operator shall maintain the Street South, Arlington, Virginia,
(i) A description of the corrective
examination records for at least one between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
action taken,
year; shall make the records available
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
(ii) The date that the corrective action Monday through Friday, except Federal
was taken, and for inspection by authorized holidays. Sign in at the receptionist’s
(iii) The name of the person who representatives of the Secretary and the desk in Suite 4E401.
made the record of the corrective action representatives of miners; and shall • Fax: 202–693–9441.
and the date the record of the corrective provide these representatives a copy on Instructions: All submissions must
action was made. request. include ‘‘RIN 1219–AB86’’ or ‘‘Docket
(3) The operator shall maintain the [FR Doc. 2016–13218 Filed 6–7–16; 8:45 am] No. MSHA–2014–0031.’’ Do not include
examination records for at least one BILLING CODE 4520–43–P personal information that you do not
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:36 Jun 07, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08JNP1.SGM 08JNP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_36936/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 2016 / Proposed Rules 36831
15. What are the advantages, associated with maintaining equipment F. Other Information
disadvantages, and relative costs of equipped with these engines? Please provide any other data or
using DPM filters capable of reducing 23. What percentage of underground information that may be useful to
DPM concentrations by at least 75 coal mines’ total diesel equipment MSHA in evaluating miners’ exposures
percent or by an average of 95 percent inventory is equipped with Tier 4i or to harmful diesel exhaust emissions,
or to a level that does not exceed an Tier 4 engines? including the effectiveness of existing
average concentration of 0.12 milligrams control mechanisms for reducing
per cubic meter (mg/m3) of air when D. Monitoring MNM Miners’ Exposures
to DPM harmful diesel emissions and limiting
diluted by 100 percent of the MSHA miners’ exposures to harmful diesel
Part 7 approved ventilation rate for that exhaust emissions.
Under the existing standards, MSHA
diesel engine? How often do the filters
uses total carbon (TC) measurements as Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811, 813(h).
need to be replaced?
a surrogate for DPM when determining
16. What sensors (e.g. ammonia, Joseph A. Main,
MNM miners’ DPM exposures.
nitrogen oxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety
(NO2)) are built into the after-treatment 24. MSHA requests information on and Health.
devices used on the diesel-powered alternative surrogates, other than TC, to
[FR Doc. 2016–13219 Filed 6–7–16; 8:45 am]
equipment? estimate a miner’s DPM exposure. What
BILLING CODE 4520–43–P
17. Are integrated engine and exhaust is the surrogate’s limit of detection and
after-treatment systems used to control what are potential interferences in a
DPM and gaseous emissions in the mine environment?
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
mining industry? If so, please describe 25. What are the advantages, SECURITY
the costs associated with acquiring and disadvantages, and relative costs for
maintaining integrated systems, and the using the alternative surrogate to Coast Guard
reduction in DPM emissions produced. determine a MNM miner’s exposure to
18. What are the advantages, DPM? Please be specific and include the 33 CFR Part 165
disadvantages, and relative costs of rationale for your response.
requiring that all light-duty diesel- [Docket Number USCG–2016–0335]
26. MSHA requests information on
powered equipment be equipped with advances in sampling and analytical RIN 1625–AA00
high-efficiency DPM filters? technology and other methods for
As discussed above, on June 29, 2004, measuring a MNM miner’s DPM Safety Zone; Ohio River Mile 42.5 to
EPA adopted Tier 4 diesel engine exposure that may allow for a reduced 43.0, Chester, West Virginia
standards. These standards are exposure limit. AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
performance-based and technology-
neutral in the sense that manufacturers E. MNM Miners’ Personal Exposure ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
are responsible for determining which Limit (PEL)
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to
emissions control technologies will be establish a temporary safety zone for all
MSHA analyzed its sampling data
needed to meet the requirements. water extending 300 feet from the left
from 2006 (when the final PEL was
Engine manufacturers will produce new descending bank into the Ohio River
published) to 2015, and found that the
engines with advanced emissions from mile 42.5 to mile 43.0. This
average exposures of MNM miners
control technologies to comply with proposed rule would be needed to
decreased by 57 percent from 253TC to
Tier 4 emissions standards. Exhaust protect personnel, vessels, and the
109TC mg/m3 in MNM mines. Further
emissions from these engines are marine environment from potential
analysis of the data revealed that
expected to decrease by more than 90 hazards created by a land based
approximately 63 percent of the mines
percent. fireworks display. Entry of vessels or
sampled had average exposures below
19. In the mining industry, are persons into this zone would be
100TC mg/m3 in 2015 and 75 percent of
operators replacing the engines on prohibited unless specifically
the mines sampled have average
existing equipment with Tier 4i authorized by the Captain of the Port
exposures below 122TC mg/m3. Overall,
(interim) or Tier 4 engines? If so, please Pittsburgh (COTP) or a designated
50 percent of the mines sampled have
specify the type of equipment (make representative. We invite your
average exposures between 48TC and
and model) and engine size and tier. comments on this proposed rulemaking.
122TC mg/m3. For operators who have
Please indicate how much it costs to
had success in reducing exposures DATES: Comments and related material
replace the engine (parts and labor).
below the existing standard, please must be received by the Coast Guard on
20. What types of diesel equipment describe the best practices that you have or before June 20, 2016.
purchased new for use in the mining used to reduce controls. MSHA intends
industry is powered by Tier 4i or Tier ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
to share this information with the identified by docket number USCG–
4 engines? What types of diesel- underground metal and nonmetal
powered equipment, purchased used for 2016–0335 using the Federal
mining community. eRulemaking Portal at http://
use in the mining industry, are powered
by Tier 3, Tier 4i or Tier 4 engines? 27. What existing controls were most www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public
21. Are Tier 4i or Tier 4 engines used effective in reducing exposures since Participation and Request for
in underground mines equipped with 2006? Are these controls available and Comments’’ portion of the
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
diesel particulate filter (DPF) systems applicable to all MNM mines? SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
(e.g., advanced diesel engines with 28. Based on MSHA’s data, MNM further instructions on submitting
integrated after-treatment systems)? miners’ average exposures are well comments.
Please provide specific examples. below the existing standard of 160TC FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
22. How long have Tier 4i or Tier 4 mg/m3. What are the technological you have questions about this proposed
engines been in use in the mining challenges and relative costs of reducing rulemaking, call or email MST1 Jennifer
industry and what additional cost is the DPM exposure limit? Haggins, Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh,
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:36 Jun 07, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08JNP1.SGM 08JNP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_36936/page/6.svg)
Document Created: 2016-06-08 03:10:10
Document Modified: 2016-06-08 03:10:10
| 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 or postmarked by midnight Eastern Standard Time on September 1, 2016. | |
| 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 | 81 FR 36826 | |
| RIN Number | 1219-AB86 | |
| CFR Citation | 30
CFR
57 30 CFR 70 30 CFR 72 30 CFR 75 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR