Print This Page
E-mail This PageMSHA Proposed Rule
Alternate Locking Devices for Plug and Receptacle-Type Connectors on Mobile Battery-Powered Machines [01/22/2003]
[PDF Version]
Volume 68, Number 14, Page 2941-2946
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration
30 CFR Part 18
RIN 1219-AA98 (Phase 10)
Alternate Locking Devices for Plug and Receptacle-Type Connectors
on Mobile Battery-Powered Machines
AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: MSHA is proposing to amend the existing regulation by allowing
the optional use of alternative locking devices for plugs and
receptacles to secure battery plugs to receptacles. The proposed rule
would eliminate the need to file petitions for modification to use this
alternative means of securing battery plugs to receptacles.
MSHA is using direct final rulemaking for this action because the
Agency expects that there will be no significant adverse comments on
the rule. If no significant adverse comments are received, MSHA will
confirm the effective date of the direct final rule. If significant
adverse comments are received, MSHA will withdraw the direct final rule
and proceed with rulemaking on this proposed rule. A subsequent Federal
Register document will be published to announce MSHA's action.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 21, 2003. Submit
written comments on the information collection requirements by February
21, 2003. The direct final rule will become effective March 10, 2003,
unless we receive significant adverse comments by February 21, 2003. If
we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule and proceed with notice and comment rulemaking.
ADDRESSES: Comments must be clearly identified as such and transmitted
either electronically to comments@msha.gov, by facsimile to (202) 693-
9441, or by regular mail or hand delivery to MSHA, Office of Standards,
Regulations, and Variances, 1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2313, Arlington,
Virginia 22209-3939. You may contact MSHA with any format questions.
Comments are posted for public viewing at http://www.msha.gov/currentcomments.htm
.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marvin W. Nichols, Jr., Director;
Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA; phone: (202)
693-9442; facsimile: (202) 693-9441; E-mail: nichols-marvin@msha.gov.
You can view comments filed on this rulemaking at http://www.msha.gov/currentcomments.htm
.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Direct Final Rules
Concurrent with this proposed rule, we also are publishing a
separate, substantively identical direct final rule in the Final Rule
section of this Federal Register. The simultaneous publication of these
documents will speed notice and comment rulemaking under Sec. 553 of
the Administrative Procedure Act should we have to withdraw the direct
final rule. All interested parties should
[[Page 2942]]
comment at this time because we will not initiate an additional comment
period.
MSHA has determined that the subject of this rulemaking is suitable
for a direct final rule. The Agency believes the actions taken are
noncontroversial and therefore does not anticipate receiving any
significant adverse comments. If MSHA does not receive significant
adverse comments on or before February 21, 2003, the Agency will
publish a notice in the Federal Register no later than March 10, 2003,
confirming the effective date of the direct final rule.
For purposes of the direct final rulemaking, a significant adverse
comment is one that explains why the rule would be inappropriate,
including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or
why it would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. In
determining whether a significant adverse comment necessitates
withdrawal of the direct final rule, MSHA will consider whether the
comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive
response in a notice and comment process. A comment recommending an
addition to the rule will not be considered a significant adverse
comment unless the comment states why this rule would be ineffective
without the addition. If significant adverse comments are received, the
Agency will publish a notice of significant adverse comments in the
Federal Register withdrawing the direct final rule no later than March
10, 2003.
In the event the direct final rule is withdrawn because of
significant adverse comments, the Agency can proceed with the
rulemaking by addressing the comments received and publishing a final
rule. The comment period for the proposed rule runs concurrently with
that of the direct final rule. Any comments received under the
companion direct final rule will be treated as comments regarding the
proposed rule. Likewise, significant adverse comments submitted to the
proposed rule will be considered as comments to the companion rule. The
Agency will consider such comments in developing a subsequent final
rule.
II. Background Information
Currently, under Sec. 18.41 of Title 30, Code of Federal
Regulations, MSHA sets forth design and construction requirements for
plug and receptacle-type connectors used with permissible electric
equipment approved under part 18. These technical requirements were
last revised in March of 1968, which represented the latest advances in
battery connector technology considered appropriate for use on mining
equipment at that time.
Over the past thirty years, there have been technological
improvements to the methods used for securing battery plugs to
receptacles. Since the provisions of existing section 18.41(f) do not
reflect the latest state-of-the-art technology, mine operators file
petitions for modification under Section 101(c) of the Mine Act to take
advantage of the technological advancements. Since 1980, there have
been approximately 300 petitions filed and granted under Section 101(c)
requesting modification to 30 CFR 75.503 (Permissible electric face
equipment; maintenance) and 18.41(f) (Plug and receptacle-type
connectors) to allow the use of alternate locking devices. The means of
securing battery connectors permitted under this proposed rule would
allow for the use of padlocks and other equally effective mechanical
devices that preclude the inadvertent separation of the battery plug
from the receptacle.
In some operations, mine operators encountered difficulties with
padlocks in both normal and emergency situations. The use of padlocks
requires the maintenance of keys by authorized personnel. Due to the
nature of mining operations, padlocks may be filled with mining debris,
rendering them difficult or impossible to open with a key. Padlock keys
can be misplaced, broken, or bent and may become unusable. This can go
unnoticed by the operator until an emergency occurs, when the key may
be unavailable or unusable. The removal of a padlock to permit the
disconnection of a battery plug in an emergency situation, such as a
battery fire, requires a longer period of time and greater effort than
the removal of any of the other locking devices permitted in this
proposed rule. However, where keys are accessible and padlocks are
relatively free from accumulation of dust, padlocks have proven to be
effective.
In 1987, to address the problems encountered with the use of
padlocks, MSHA issued a policy allowing use of an alternative to
padlocks. This policy permits the use of a device that is captive and
requires a special tool to disengage and allow separation of the
connector. A device is captive when a mechanical connection is made
permanent by a locking device that is confined in its mounting location
in a manner where, once installed, it cannot be inadvertently removed.
The mechanical connection can only be made non-permanent by direct and
intervening action using a special tool. A special tool is one that is
not normally carried by miners and is used to ensure that constant
pressure is maintained to prevent inadvertent separation of the plug
from the receptacle.
Since 1980, mine operators have also been granted permission,
through the petition for modification process, to use a spring-loaded
locking device. MSHA determined that spring-loaded locking devices
provide at least the same measure of protection as padlocks and captive
locking devices. These devices maintain constant pressure on the
threaded ring or equivalent mechanical fastening to prevent the plug
from accidentally disengaging from the receptacle.
For both alternate locking devices, the captive locking device and
the spring loaded locking device, a warning tag is also required to
alert the user that the connector must not be disengaged under load.
Withdrawal of a battery plug from the receptacle while the machine is
energized (i.e., under load) can create incendive arcing and sparking
that could result in a personal injury, explosion, or fire. The
requirement for the warning tag, along with part 48 new task training
requirements, provide for appropriate hazard recognition when using
alternative locking devices. MSHA is unaware of any adverse incidents
involving alternate locking devices.
By issuing this proposed rule, MSHA is responding to the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order
12866 that agencies review their regulations to determine their
effectiveness and to implement any changes indicated by the review that
will make the regulation more flexible and efficient for stakeholders
and small businesses while maintaining needed protections for workers.
The amended rule would maintain the protection afforded by the existing
standard.
III. Discussion of Alternative Locking Devices on Mobile Battery-
Powered Machines
A. Paragraph 18.41
Section 18.41 addresses connectors used on battery and non battery-
powered machines. Section 18.41(f) specifies requirements for plug and
receptacle-type connectors used on mobile battery-powered machines
employed in underground gassy mines. This rulemaking proposes to modify
paragraph (f) of 30 CFR 18.41 by adding two new provisions allowing the
use of devices that provide at least the same measure of protection as
that afforded by the existing standards. The Agency recognizes that
battery-powered machine designs differ from conventional machine
designs
[[Page 2943]]
employing trailing cables. The energy to battery-powered equipment is
carried on-board the machine with rechargeable battery assemblies,
rather than being transmitted via a trailing cable from a section power
center. Because of the inherent design limitations of battery-powered
machines, there is no practical way to automatically remove all
electrical power from battery-powered machines. Machines powered by
trailing cables have circuit-interrupting devices that can be used to
de-energize them, whereas most battery-powered machines rely on a plug
and receptacle for de-energization. The proper procedure for removing
power from a battery-powered machine is to first open the main machine
disconnect device and then to disengage the plug from the receptacle.
This effectively isolates the battery power from the machine.
B. Subparagraph 18.41(f)(1)
Subparagraph 30 CFR 18.41(f)(1) would retain the existing provision
that a plug padlocked to the receptacle would be acceptable in lieu of
an interlock provided the plug is held in place by a threaded ring or
equivalent mechanical fastening in addition to the padlock. This
paragraph also would retain the provision that a connector within a
padlocked enclosure would be acceptable.
A padlock used on a battery plug and receptacle-type connector
serves a dual purpose. It secures the threaded ring or equivalent
mechanical fastening in place. A padlock is also used as a means to
prevent the removal of the plug from the receptacle by unauthorized
personnel. In this respect, only those persons having keys are
considered authorized to remove the plug from the receptacle.
C. Subparagraph 18.41(f)(2)
Subparagraph 30 CFR 18.41(f)(2) would be a new provision which
provides for an alternate method for securing the battery plug to the
receptacle. The rule would provide that a plug which is held in place
by a threaded ring or equivalent mechanical fastening will be
acceptable provided that the threaded ring is secured in place with a
device that is captive. It would also require a special tool to
disengage the device and allow for the separation of the connector. It
would further require a warning tag that states: ``DO NOT DISENGAGE
UNDER LOAD.''
D. Subparagraph 18.41(f)(3)
Subparagraph 30 CFR 18.41(f)(3) would be a new provision which
provides for another alternate method for securing the battery plug to
the receptacle. The rule states that a plug held in place by a spring-
loaded or other locking device that maintains constant pressure against
a threaded ring or equivalent mechanical fastening would be acceptable
provided that it would secure the plug from accidental separation. It
would further require a warning tag that states: ``DO NOT DISENGAGE
UNDER LOAD.''
This subparagraph would allow for the use of other locking devices
that may become available in the future. The Agency has included this
language to allow for acceptance of equally effective devices. Devices
not explicitly defined in this rulemaking must be equally effective and
provide at least the same measure of protection as those incorporated
under this section.
Neither of the alternatives in subparagraphs 18.41(f)(2) or (f)(3)
would impose additional requirements to the 1987 MSHA policy or the
granted petitions for modification.
IV. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review and
Regulatory Flexibility Act)
Introduction
MSHA is proposing to amend 30 CFR 18.41(f), concerning plug and
receptacle-type connectors for mobile battery-powered equipment. The
proposed rule would revise and update the existing regulation by
allowing the use of alternate locking devices to secure battery plugs
to receptacles. Two alternate locking devices are addressed in this
proposed rule.
(1) Captive locking devices requiring use of a special tool. These
devices have been accepted since 1987 under an MSHA policy allowing
their usage.
(2) Spring loaded or other locking devices. Spring-loaded locking
devices have been accepted by MSHA under the 101(c) Petition for
Modification process.
The proposed rule, once promulgated, would eliminate the need to
file petitions for modification (PFM) to use spring-loaded locking
devices to secure battery plugs to receptacles. It would also codify
the 1987 MSHA policy of allowing acceptance of captive locking devices.
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 requires that regulatory agencies
assess both the costs and benefits of intended regulations. MSHA has
fulfilled this requirement for this proposed rule, and based upon its
economic analysis, has determined that the proposed rule would not have
an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy. Therefore, it
would not be an economically significant regulatory action pursuant to
Sec. 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866.
The proposed rule would eliminate the need for mine operators of
underground gassy mines, who choose to use plug and receptacle-type
connectors for mobile battery-powered equipment, to file PFMs, and
thereby would generate cost savings.
From 1999 to 2001, 66 petitions were filed and granted to modify
the application of 30 CFR 75.503 (permissible electric face equipment;
maintenance) and 30 CFR 18.41(f) (plug and receptacle-type connectors).
Through November 20, 2002, 23 petitions have been filed, for a total of
89 filed petitions from 1999 to 2002. On average, 22 petitions were
filed during each of the past 4 years.
Mining Sectors Affected
The proposed rule would apply to all underground gassy mines. All
underground coal mines are considered gassy mines and are affected by
this proposed rule. Gassy metal and nonmetal (M/NM) mines would also be
affected by the proposed rule. Currently there are no battery-powered
machines of the type covered by the proposed rule in any of the gassy
M/NM mines. Since these devices have not been used in M/NM mines, for
purposes of this economic analysis, MSHA assumes that M/NM mines would
not be affected by this rule. MSHA estimates that, on average, 22
underground coal mines per year would be affected by this rule.
Benefits
MSHA has qualitatively determined that the proposed rule, which
would permit use of alternate locking devices on mobile battery-powered
equipment instead of using padlocks, would yield safety benefits
relative to the existing rule, which does not permit use of alternate
locking devices on mobile battery-powered equipment. The use of
alternate locking devices in lieu of padlocks on mobile battery-powered
equipment would eliminate the problems associated with difficult
removal of padlocks.
Compliance Costs
Cost savings from the proposed rule would accrue to underground
coal mines that choose to use spring-loaded locking devices on mobile
battery-powered equipment since they would no longer have to file a
PFM. Cost savings from the proposed rule are estimated to be $9,747 per
year. The cost savings are based upon the elimination of the filing of
an average of 22 petitions per year. It is projected that of the 22
mines, 19 would employ 20 to
[[Page 2944]]
500 workers, and 3 would employ fewer than 20 workers. For 3 mines that
employ fewer than 20 workers these cost savings would be $1,329. For
the remaining 19 mines that employ 20 to 500 workers the cost savings
would be $8,418.
Mines Employing Fewer Than 20 Workers
The cost savings of $1,329 for mines employing fewer than 20
workers are derived in the following manner. On average, a mine
supervisor, earning $54.92 per hour, takes 8 hours to prepare a
petition (3 petitions x 8 hours x $54.92 per hour = $1,318). In
addition, a clerical worker, earning $19.58 per hour, takes 0.1 hours
to copy and mail a petition (3 petitions x 0.1 hours x $19.58 per hour
= $6). Furthermore, MSHA estimates that, on average, each petition is 5
pages long, photocopying costs are $0.15 per page, and postage is $1 [3
petitions x ((5 pages x $0.15 per page) + $1) = $5].
Mines Employing 20 to 500 Workers
The cost savings of $8,418 for mines that employ 20 to 500 workers
are derived in the following manner. On average, a mine supervisor,
earning $54.92 per hour, takes 8 hours to prepare a petition (19
petitions x 8 hours x $54.92 per hour = $8,348). In addition, a
clerical worker, earning $19.58 per hour, takes 0.1 hours to copy and
mail a petition (19 petitions x 0.1 hours x $19.58 per hour = $37).
Furthermore, MSHA estimates that, on average, each petition is 5 pages
long, photocopying costs are $0.15 per page, and postage is $1 [19
petitions x ((5 pages x $0.15 per page) + $1) = $33].
There are no substantive changes proposed that apply to any mine
that chooses not to use alternate locking devices on mobile battery-
powered equipment. Thus, these mines would not incur costs nor generate
cost savings as a result of the proposed rule.
V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 as amended
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA),
MSHA has analyzed the impact of the proposed rule on small businesses.
Further, MSHA has made a determination with respect to whether or not
the Agency can certify that the proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
that are covered by these rulemakings. Under SBREFA amendments to the
RFA, MSHA must include in the rule a factual basis for this
certification. If the proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, then the Agency must
develop an initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
Definition of a Small Mine
Under the RFA, in analyzing the impact of a rule on small entities,
MSHA must use the SBA definition for a small entity or, after
consultation with the SBA Office of Advocacy, establish an alternative
definition for the mining industry by publishing that definition in the
Federal Register for notice and comment. MSHA has not taken such an
action, and hence is required to use the SBA definition.
The SBA defines a small entity in the mining industry as an
establishment with 500 or fewer employees (13 CFR 121.201). All of the
mines affected by this rulemaking fall into this category and hence can
be viewed as sharing the special regulatory concerns which the RFA was
designed to address.
Traditionally, the Agency has also looked at the impacts of its
rules on a subset of mines with 500 or fewer employees''those with
fewer than 20 employees, which the mining community refers to as
``small mines.'' These small mines differ from larger mines not only in
the number of employees, but also, among other things, in economies of
scale in material produced, in the type and amount of production
equipment, and in supply inventory. Therefore, their costs of complying
with MSHA rules and the impact of MSHA rules on them would also tend to
be different. It is for this reason that ``small mines,'' as
traditionally defined by the mining community, are of special concern
to MSHA.
This analysis complies with the legal requirements of the RFA for
an analysis of the impacts on ``small entities'' while continuing
MSHA's traditional look at ``small mines.'' MSHA concludes that it can
certify that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities that are covered by
this rulemaking. The Agency has determined that this is the case both
for mines affected by this rulemaking with fewer than 20 employees and
for mines affected by this rulemaking with 500 or fewer employees.
Factual Basis for Certification
The Agency's analysis of impacts on ``small entities'' begins with
a ``screening'' analysis. The screening compares the estimated
compliance costs of a rule for small entities in the sector affected by
the rule to the estimated revenues for those small entities. When
estimated compliance costs are less than one percent of the estimated
revenues, or they are negative (that is, they provide a cost savings),
the Agency believes it is generally appropriate to conclude that there
is no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. When estimated compliance costs exceed one percent of
revenues, it tends to indicate that further analysis may be warranted.
Using either MSHA's or SBA's definition of a small mine, the proposed
rule would result only in cost savings to affected mines. Therefore,
the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities using either MSHA's or SBA's
definition of a small mine. Accordingly, we are publishing the factual
basis for our regulatory flexibility certification statement in the
Federal Register, as a part of this preamble, and are providing a copy
to the Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy. We also will
mail a copy of the direct final rule, including the preamble and
certification statement, to mine operators and miners' representatives
and post it on our Internet Home page at http://www.msha.gov.
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The proposed amendments to 30 CFR 18.41(f) would not introduce any
new paperwork requirements that are subject to OMB approval under the
Paperwork Reduction Act. In addition, the third-party disclosure
requirements proposed for 30 CFR 18.41(f)(2) and (3) are not considered
a ``collection of information'' because the standard provides the exact
language for warning tags [see 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2)].
As a result of the proposed rule, the number of petitions for
modification filed annually related to battery plugs would be reduced.
Therefore, the proposed rule would result in reducing burden hours and
costs in the ICR 1219-0065 paperwork package, which concerns the filing
of petitions for modification.
The proposed rule would result in 178.2 burden hour savings
annually and associated annual burden cost savings of $9,709 related to
the elimination of 22 petitions annually for alternate locking devices
to secure battery plugs to receptacles. Of this total, for the 3 mines
that employ fewer than 20 workers, there would be 24.3 burden hours
savings annually and associated annual burden cost savings of $1,324.
For the 19 mines that employ 20 to 500 workers, there would be 153.9
burden hours
[[Page 2945]]
savings annually and associated annual burden cost savings of $8,385.
Mines Employing Fewer Than 20 Workers
The annual reduction of 24.3 burden hours and the $1,324 cost
savings that would occur for the 3 mines that employ fewer than 20
workers are derived in the following manner. On average, a mine
supervisor takes 8 hours to prepare a petition (3 petitions x 8 hours =
24 hours). In addition, on average, a clerical worker takes 0.1 hours,
6 minutes, to copy and mail a petition (3 petitions x 0.1 hours = 0.3
hours). The hourly wage rate for a mine supervisor is $54.92 ($54.92 x
24 burden hours = $1,318.10). The hourly wage rate for a clerical
worker is $19.58 ($19.58 0.3 burden hours = $5.90).
Mines Employing 20 to 500 Workers
The annual reduction of 153.9 burden hours and the $8,385 cost
savings that would occur for the 19 mines that employ 20 to 500 workers
are derived in the following manner. On average, a mine supervisor
takes 8 hours to prepare a petition (19 petitions x 8 hours = 152
hours). In addition, on average, a clerical worker takes 0.1 hours, 6
minutes, to copy and mail a petition (19 petitions x 0.1 hours = 1.9
hours). The hourly wage rate for a mine supervisor is $54.92 ($54.92 x
152 burden hours = $8,347.84). The hourly wage rate for a clerical
worker is $19.58 ($19.58 x 1.9 burden hours = $37.20).
The amendment to 30 CFR 18.41(f) would eliminate a need for mine
operators to file petitions for modification. Resulting from the
decreased number of petitions, MSHA would not conduct investigations
related to the determination the merits of the petition. The paperwork
containing the information necessary to permit investigation of the
petition for modification would not be needed. The petition for
modification paperwork requirements are contained in 30 CFR 44.9, 44.10
and 44.11. They are approved under OMB control number 1219-0065. We are
not proposing to amend Sec. Sec. 44.9, 44.10, or 44.11. We are only
proposing to amend a regulation that is frequently petitioned.
Consequently, MSHA would not submit a paperwork package with this
direct final rule. Although it is not necessary to update the
Information Collection Requirement document at this time, we will
submit the necessary paperwork to record the decrease in burden when
appropriate. Our estimate of the number of petitions submitted each
year would be reduced by the average number of petitions for
modification currently submitted to modify the current regulation.
VII. Other Regulatory Considerations
A. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 and Executive Order 12875
(Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership)
For purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, as well
as E.O. 12875, the proposed rule would not include any Federal mandate
that might result in increased expenditures by State, local, and tribal
governments, or increased expenditures by the private sector of more
than $100 million. MSHA is not aware of any State, local, or tribal
government that either owns or operates underground coal mines.
B. Executive Order 12630 (Governmental Actions and Interference With
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights)
The proposed rule would not be subject to Executive Order 12630
because it does not involve implementation of a policy with takings
implications.
C. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
MSHA has reviewed Executive Order 12988 and determined that the
proposed rule would not unduly burden the Federal court system. The
Agency wrote the proposed rule to provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct and has reviewed it carefully to eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguities.
D. Executive Order 13045 (Health and Safety Effect on Children)
In accordance with Executive Order 13045, MSHA has evaluated the
environmental health and safety effects of the proposed rule on
children and has determined that it would have no adverse effects on
children.
E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
MSHA has reviewed the proposed rule in accordance with Executive
Order 13132 regarding federalism and has determined that it would not
have federalism implications.
F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments)
MSHA certifies that the proposed rule would not impose substantial
direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments.
G. Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)
In accordance with Executive Order 13211, MSHA has reviewed the
proposed rule and has determined that it would have no adverse effect
on the production or price of coal. Consequently, it would have no
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy, and no reasonable alternatives to this action are necessary.
H. Executive Order 13272 (Proper Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking)
In accordance with Executive Order 13272, MSHA has thoroughly
reviewed the proposed rule to assess and take appropriate account of
its potential impact on small businesses, small governmental
jurisdictions, and small organizations. As discussed in section V in
this preamble, MSHA has determined that the proposed rule would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
VIII. Petitions for Modification
On the effective date of the direct final rule, all existing
petitions for modification for alternate locking devices for plug and
receptacle-type connectors on mobile battery-powered machines would be
superseded. Mine operators who have a previously granted petition
modifying 30 CFR 75.503 and 18.41(f) would thereafter be considered in
compliance with this rule, as long as the equipment is maintained in
compliance with the specifications stated in the original petition for
modification. All battery-powered equipment approved with locking
devices prior to the effective date of this rule would be considered
compliant, as long as the equipment is maintained in accordance with
the originally approved specifications.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 18
Mine safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Underground mining.
Dated: January 13, 2003.
Dave D. Lauriski,
Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, and under the authority of
the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, we are proposing to
amend chapter I, subpart B, part 18 of title 30 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
[[Page 2946]]
PART 18--ELECTRIC MOTOR-DRIVEN MINE EQUIPMENT AND ACCESSORIES
1. The authority citation for part 18 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 957, 961.
Subpart B--[Proposed Amendment]
2. Paragraph (f) of Sec. 18.41 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 18.41 Plug and receptacle-type connectors.
* * * * *
(f) For a mobile battery-powered machine, a plug and receptacle-
type connector will be acceptable in lieu of an interlock provided:
(1) The plug is padlocked to the receptacle and is held in place by
a threaded ring or equivalent mechanical fastening in addition to a
padlock. A connector within a padlocked enclosure will be acceptable;
or,
(2) The plug is held in place by a threaded ring or equivalent
mechanical fastening, in addition to the use of a device that is
captive and requires a special tool to disengage and allow for the
separation of the connector. All connectors using this means of
compliance shall have a clearly visible warning tag that states: ``DO
NOT DISENGAGE UNDER LOAD''; or,
(3) The plug is held in place by a spring-loaded or other locking
device, that maintains constant pressure against a threaded ring or
equivalent mechanical fastening, to secure the plug from accidental
separation. All connectors using this means of compliance shall have a
clearly visible warning tag that states: ``DO NOT DISENGAGE UNDER
LOAD.''
[FR Doc. 03-1306 Filed 1-21-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-43-P
