Print This Page
E-mail This PageMSHA Proposed Rule
High-Voltage Continuous Mining Machine Standard for Underground Coal Mines [03/28/2006]
[PDF Version]
Volume 71, Number 59, Page 15359-15365
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration
30 CFR Parts 18 and 75
RIN 1219-AB34
High-Voltage Continuous Mining Machine Standard for Underground
Coal Mines
AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We (the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)) are
reproposing provisions involving two issues included in the notice of
proposed rulemaking that was published in the Federal Register on July
16, 2004. These issues involve the following: Types of trailing cables
that can be used with high-voltage continuous mining machines; and a
requirement to use high-voltage insulating gloves or insulated cable
handling tools when handling energized high-voltage trailing cables. In
connection with the second issue, we are also addressing the
availability requirement for high-voltage insulating gloves and
insulated cable handling tools, and the safety requirements for these
tools. We are reproposing these provisions after consideration of the
oral and written pre- and post-hearing comments that we received.
DATES: Comments must be received by May 30, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Comments must be clearly identified as such and transmitted
electronically to http://www.regulations.gov or to
zzMSHA-comments@dol.gov. Include ``RIN 1219-AB34'' in the subject line of the
message. Persons unable to file comments electronically should submit
their comments to us by regular mail or hand delivery to MSHA, 1100
Wilson Blvd., Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia 22209-3939, or by
facsimile at 202-693-9441. You may contact us with any format
questions.
Instructions: All comments, including any personal information
contained therein, will be posted without change at http://www.msha.gov/currentcomments.asp
.
Docket: The entire rulemaking record may be viewed in MSHA's public
reading room at 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2349, Arlington, Virginia.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information contact Robert
Stone, Acting Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and
Variances, MSHA, 1100 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Virginia 22209-3939. Mr.
Stone can be reached at (202) 693-9440.
We maintain a listserve on our Web site that enables subscribers to
receive e-mail notification when we publish rulemaking documents in the
Federal Register. To subscribe to the listserve, visit our site at
http://www.msha.gov/subscriptions/subscribe.aspx.
You may obtain copies of this proposed rule in an alternative
format by accessing the Internet at http://www.msha.gov/REGSINFO.HTM.
The document is also available by calling 202-693-9440.
I. Rulemaking Background
On July 16, 2004, we published a proposed rule in the Federal
Register (69 FR 42812) to establish design requirements for approval of
high-voltage continuous mining machines operating in face areas of coal
underground mines. The rule also proposed to establish new mandatory
electrical safety standards for the installation, use, and maintenance
of high-voltage continuous mining machines used in underground coal
mines. The proposed rule would enable mines to safely utilize high-
voltage continuous mining machines with enhanced safety protection from
fire, explosion, and shock hazards without the need for mine operators
to file petitions for modification (PFM) to use them.
In the July 16, 2004 Federal Register notice we also announced that
four public hearings would be held in September 2004. The post-hearing
comment period was scheduled to close on October 14, 2004. However, on
August 23, 2004, we published a notice changing the public hearing
dates to November 2004, and the close of the post-hearing comment
period to
[[Page 15360]]
December 10, 2004 (69 FR 51787). Hearings were held accordingly. We
then reviewed all oral and written comments received.
Based on that review, we have decided to repropose provisions that
relate to the types of trailing cables that can be used with high-
voltage continuous mining machines and the types of cable handling
equipment that must be used when handling energized high-voltage
trailing cables. We are requesting comments on these provisions. All
submissions to us concerning these provisions will be placed in the
record and made available for public review. Any submissions concerning
other provisions of the July 16, 2004 proposed rule submitted at this
time are beyond the scope of this regulatory action and will not be
considered.
II. Section-by-Section Discussion
The following section-by-section analysis explains how the
provisions proposed today compare with the associated provisions as
proposed on July 16, 2004. We also discuss the public comments received
on the associated July 16, 2004 provisions.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 18.54(f)(4) High-Voltage Trailing Cable(s) Jackets
The July 16, 2004 proposed rule incorporated by reference the
current carrying capacity (ampacity) ratings and outside diameter
requirements for trailing cables listed in the Insulated Cable
Engineers Association Standards (ICEA) S-75-381/National Electrical
Manufacturer's Association (NEMA) Standard NEMA WC 58-1997. However,
the proposed rule failed to include an incorporation by reference of
the physical properties for the double-jacketed cable listed in the
ICEA S-75-381/NEMA WC 58-1997 standard. We are correcting this
oversight by proposing to incorporate by reference the physical
properties of the double-jacketed trailing cable specified in the ICEA/
NEMA document referenced above. The proposed incorporation does not
include additional requirements and is being proposed only to clarify
that double-jacketed trailing cables will be required to meet the
ampacity ratings, the outside diameter requirements, as well as the
physical properties listed in ICEA S-75-381/NEMA WC 58-1997, as do all
the double-jacketed trailing cables accepted in granted PFMs.
Accordingly, proposed paragraph (f) notes that the incorporation of
the ICEA S-75-381/NEMA WC 58-1997 standard was approved by the Director
of the Federal Register, and includes details regarding where the
public may inspect or purchase a copy of such standard.
Single-jacketed trailing cables will need to meet the ampacity
ratings and outside diameter requirements listed in the referenced
ICEA/NEMA standard. Proposed paragraph (f)(4)(ii) includes the physical
properties (minimum tear and tensile) requirements as discussed below.
Proposed Sec. 18.54(f)(4) addresses the design and construction of
high-voltage trailing cable jackets. As originally proposed on July 16,
2004, paragraph (f)(4) would have required trailing cables to have two
reinforced layers of jacket material. With this type of construction,
the inner-most layer of the two-layered protective cable jacket would
have been required to be a color distinctive from the outer jacket
color so that the damaged jacket would be easily identifiable, and the
color black was not permitted to be used for either layer.
We received several comments on Sec. 18.54(f)(4) as it was
proposed in July 2004. Some commenters were in favor of using single-
jacketed cables made of thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU). A commenter
stated that the TPU jacket is stronger than a two-layer jacket and it
should be allowed as an option to the two-layered jacket. This
commenter further stated that the TPU jacket material has a very high
tensile strength and is extremely resistant to abrasion and tear. This
commenter reported that the minimum tensile strength and tear strength
of extra heavy duty rubber jackets were 2400 pounds per square inch and
40 pounds per inch, while the values for the TPU jackets were 5000
pounds per square inch and 120 pounds per inch, respectively. The
commenter indicated that the TPU material can be made in a color other
than black, and is so rugged that it can only be successfully
manufactured in a single layer. This commenter stated that TPU-jacketed
trailing cables have been in use in the mining industry for 11 or 12
years and have also been used successfully as shearer power cables and
trailing cables on some medium-voltage continuous mining machines and
other pieces of mining equipment.
Another commenter stated that at least one PFM permitted the use of
a TPU jacket as an alternative to the double-jacket requirement. This
commenter further noted that this type of single-jacketed cable had
been used at a mine on two high-voltage continuous mining machines and
on shuttle cars for over two years, both successfully. Another
commenter suggested that Sec. 18.54(f)(4) (as proposed in July 2004)
use the same PFM language to allow both the single-jacketed and double-
jacketed trailing cables. However, this commenter later stated that a
single-jacketed trailing cable should not be included in the
regulation, and offered no explanation for the basis of his comment.
Based on the information provided by commenters, we are proposing
to revise Sec. 18.54(f)(4) of the July 16, 2004 proposed rule to
permit the use of a single-jacketed cable. Proposed Sec.
18.54(f)(4)(ii) would require that a single-jacketed cable have a tear
strength of more than 100 pounds per inch thickness and a tensile
strength exceeding 4000 pounds per square inch. Proposed Sec.
18.54(f)(4)(i) would require a double-jacketed trailing cable to have
two reinforced layers of jacket material. ICEA Publication S-75-381
specifies requirements for double-jacketed cables. The publication
lists a number of physical properties (including tear and tensile
strengths) for four different jacket materials. ICEA also cites minimum
values for tear and tensile strengths. The ICEA requirements have
applied to all of our PFMs. However, since the TPU jacket material is
not covered by this ICEA standard, we are proposing to set requirements
for the TPU jacket as discussed above. Proposed paragraph (f)(4)
results from wording we used in granted PFMs which permit the use of
double-jacketed trailing cables and a granted PFM that permits the
option of using a single-jacketed trailing cable for high-voltage
continuous mining machines. The granted PFM for the single-jacketed
trailing cable specified that the jacket must have a tear-strength of
more than 100 pounds per inch thickness and a tensile strength
exceeding 4000 pounds per square inch.
Our experience with the granted PFM permitting the use of a single-
jacketed cable, suggests that the proposed tear and tensile strength
values specified above will protect the cable from damage, thereby
protecting miners from shock hazards. A single-jacketed cable that
meets the proposed tear and tensile strength values would be in
compliance with the proposed provision. The single jacketed cable would
be permitted to be used for a trailing cable on high-voltage continuous
mining machines provided it also meets the other applicable provisions
of this part.
We are also proposing to remove the extraneous language in Sec.
18.54(f)(4)(i) which states, ``to allow easy recognition of damaged
jacket areas.'' This language, although helpful in understanding why we
are requiring that the innermost layer of the double-jacketed cable be
a different color than the outermost layer,
[[Page 15361]]
is not needed as rule text. This section was also rewritten for
clarity. These proposed rule changes would not reduce the protection
afforded by existing 30 CFR part 18 standards.
We are requesting comments on proposed Sec. 18.54(f)(4), including
the minimum tear and tensile strength values for single-jacketed
cables.
Section 75.828 Trailing Cable Handling and Pulling
(a) Handling
Section 75.828(a), as proposed on July 16, 2004, addressed the
types of personal protective equipment (PPE) required to be used when
it is necessary to handle energized cables. Section 75.828(a) would
have prohibited handling energized high-voltage trailing cables without
wearing properly tested and rated insulating gloves. The provision
would have required that testing and rating of the insulating gloves be
in accordance with Sec. 75.833 as proposed on July 16, 2004.
Furthermore, Sec. 75.828(a) would have required the use of high-
voltage insulating gloves even if mitts, hooks, tongs, slings, aprons,
or other PPE was used. Many comments were received on Sec. 75.828(a)
as proposed on July 16, 2004. Several commenters stated that the high-
voltage trailing cable would be the safest cable in the mine because of
the proposed cable design and sensitive ground-fault protection
required. These commenters indicated that the energized cable could be
safely handled without the use of high-voltage gloves. A commenter
submitted a safety analysis concluding that, ``handling cable used on a
2400-V continuous miner in the same fashion as on low- and medium-
voltage continuous miners would not present an increased shock
hazard.'' Another commenter referred to the above analysis and stated,
``This cable is as safe or safer than low- and medium-voltage cables
and should not be treated differently than any other trailing cable on
the section.''
Some commenters supported the use of gloves as providing the safest
method for handling energized trailing cables. A few commenters
suggested the use of additional protection such as chest protectors and
face shields. Other commenters suggested the use of a cable handling
system as an alternative to insulating gloves.
Some commenters discussed how cumbersome it is to use high-voltage
insulating gloves for handling high-voltage cables. These commenters
stated that the gloves are so uncomfortable that many miners would have
them at hand but probably would not use them. A few commenters
suggested that the hygiene concerns of some miners would require mine
operators to purchase many sets of gloves and leather protectors. These
commenters suggested the use of slings, tongs, hooks, etc., as an
alternative to high-voltage insulating gloves.
We agree that it is appropriate to provide an alternative to
requiring high-voltage insulating gloves to handle energized cables,
and believe that insulated cable handling tools would provide such a
suitable option. Examples of insulated cable handling tools are hooks,
slings, and tongs when designed and manufactured for cable handling.
Consequently, we would not consider aprons, face shields, and chest
protectors to be insulated cable handling tools because they are not
designed and manufactured for cable handling. However, this proposed
rule would not prohibit the use of these other personal protective
equipment when they are used in conjunction with insulating gloves or
insulated cable handling tools.
Also, in the July 16, 2004 proposed rule, we had implied in error
that mitts (or mittens) are different than gloves and the proposed rule
would have required that they be used in conjunction with gloves. Since
high-voltage insulating gloves may be finger gloves or mittens, this
proposed rule does not make a distinction between them. Therefore, any
reference in this proposed rule to insulating gloves would also include
mittens.
Based on the above comments, we are now proposing to revise Sec.
75.828(a) of the July 16, 2004 proposed rule to allow the option of
either using high-voltage insulating gloves, which includes both the
rubber gloves and the leather outer protector gloves, or insulated
cable handling tools when handling energized high-voltage trailing
cables. We are proposing to add the words ``including both the rubber
gloves and the leather outer protector gloves'' to clarify that both
gloves must be worn to satisfy the glove requirement. In addition, we
are proposing to redesignate revised Sec. 75.828(a) as Sec. 75.833(a)
to consolidate all the cable handling requirements under one standard.
Consequently, we are proposing to revise the section heading of Sec.
75.828 to read, ``Trailing cable pulling,'' and the provision would be
renumbered and redesignated as proposed Sec. 75.833, as discussed
below. This proposed rule would not reduce the protection afforded by
existing 30 CFR part 75 standards.
We are requesting comments on the revision of this provision to
allow the option of using insulated cable handling tools. We also
request comments on the revision and redesignation of this provision as
proposed Sec. 75.833(a).
Section 75.833 Handling High-Voltage Trailing Cables
Section 75.833, as proposed on July 16, 2004, addressed the
ratings, tests required, and frequency of examination and testing of
high-voltage insulating gloves. Section 75.833(a) would have required
mine operators to provide high-voltage insulating gloves to miners for
handling energized high-voltage trailing cables. Section 75.833(b)
would have required high-voltage insulating gloves to have a Class 1
(7,500 maximum use volts) or higher voltage rating in accordance with
ASTM F496-02a. Section 75.833(c) would have required the rubber portion
of the insulating gloves to be air-tested at the beginning of each
shift. Section 75.833(d) would have required the leather and rubber
insulating gloves to be visually examined before each use for signs of
damage. Section 75.833(e) would have required the damaged rubber gloves
to be removed from underground or destroyed. Section 75.833(f) would
have required that rubber insulating gloves be electrically tested
every 30 days in accordance with ASTM F496-02a.
Based on the comments received on Sec. 75.828(a) of the July 16,
2004 proposed rule, and as discussed above, we are proposing to add
revised Sec. 75.828(a) to proposed Sec. 75.833, changing the section
heading for Sec. 75.833, and redesignating it as proposed Sec.
75.833(a). This proposed rule would not reduce the protection afforded
by existing 30 CFR part 75 standards. We request comments on proposed
Sec. 75.833(a). We are also reproposing Sec. 75.833(a) of the July
16, 2004 proposed rule to require that mine operators provide high-
voltage insulating gloves or insulated cable handling tools to miners
who handle energized high-voltage trailing cables. This provision would
be redesignated as paragraph (b) of proposed Sec. 75.833. We request
comments on proposed Sec. 75.833(b), formerly Sec. 75.833(a).
Additionally, we are reproposing Sec. Sec. 75.833(b) and 75.833(f)
of the July 16, 2004 proposed rule to consolidate in one paragraph the
voltage rating and testing requirements for the rubber portion of the
high-voltage insulating gloves. This consolidation does not include
additional requirements, but simplifies the document because it would
contain a single incorporation by reference of the ASTM F496-02a
``Standard Specification for In-Service Care of Insulating Gloves and
Sleeves (2002).'' The new paragraph would be codified as proposed Sec.
75.833(c)(1). We
[[Page 15362]]
request comments on proposed Sec. 75.833(c)(1), formerly Sec. Sec.
75.833(b) and 75.833(f).
Finally, we are proposing to add a new paragraph to Sec. 75.833 of
the July 16, 2004 proposed rule to specify requirements for insulated
cable handling tools. This new paragraph would be codified as proposed
Sec. 75.833(d).
Proposed Sec. 75.833(d)(1) would require that insulated cable
handling tools be rated and maintained to withstand at least 7,500
volts. We are proposing to require 7,500 volts rating to ensure that
the insulated cable handling tools provide at least the same level of
protection to miners as the insulating high-voltage gloves.
Proposed Sec. 75.833(d)(2) would require that an insulated cable
handling tool be designed and manufactured for cable handling in order
to protect miners against shock hazards. This proposed requirement is
also intended to ensure that miners use cable handling tools that are
an effective substitute for high-voltage insulating gloves. As
discussed under Sec. 75.828(a), examples of insulated cable handling
tools are hooks, slings, and tongs, when designed and manufactured for
cable handling. While face shields and chest protectors protect miners
against shock hazards, we do not consider them to be insulated cable
handling tools because they are not designed and manufactured for cable
handling. However, under the proposed rule such personal protective
equipment may be used in conjunction with high-voltage insulating
gloves or insulated cable handling tools.
Proposed Sec. 75.833(d)(3) would require that the insulated cable
handling tools be visually examined before each use for signs of damage
or defects. This proposed requirement would help identify damaged or
defective insulated cable handling tools before they present a hazard
to miners.
Proposed Sec. 75.833(d)(4) would require that damaged or defective
insulated cable handling tools be removed from the underground area of
the mine or destroyed. This proposed requirement is intended to ensure
that the insulated cable handling tools available to miners who handle
energized high-voltage cables are safe to use.
This proposed rule would not reduce the protection afforded by
existing 30 CFR part 75 standards. We specifically request comments on
all of the proposed provisions of Sec. 75.833(d).
Sections 75.833(c), (d), and (e) of the July 16, 2004 proposed rule
are not being reproposed. These sections have been redesignated as
Sec. Sec. 75.833(c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4), and any comments received
on these sections would be beyond the scope of the rulemaking and would
not be considered. For the reader's convenience, we are publishing, in
this notice, proposed Sec. 75.833 in its entirety, including those
sections that are not being reproposed.
III. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review and
Regulatory Flexibility Act)
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 as amended by E.O. 13258 requires that
regulatory agencies assess both the costs and benefits of proposed
regulations. We have fulfilled this requirement for the proposed rule,
and have determined that it would not have an annual effect of $100
million or more on the economy. Therefore, the proposed rule is not an
economically significant regulatory action pursuant to section 3(f)(1)
of E.O. 12866.
Mining Sectors Affected
As of the end of 2003, this proposed rule would apply to 640
underground coal mines in the United States (and the approximately
36,100 underground coal miners employed in those mines).
Benefits
The proposed rule would reduce the potential for electrical-related
fatalities and injuries. This risk reduction is derived from proposed
Sec. Sec. 18.54(f)(4) and 75.833. Proposed Sec. 75.833 would require
miners to use either high-voltage insulating gloves or insulated cable
handling tools while handling energized high-voltage trailing cable.
The proposed rule would ensure the safety of miners from electrical
shock by requiring the insulated cable handling tools to be designed
and maintained to withstand a voltage of at least 7,500 volts. This is
the same voltage requirement as Class 1 high-voltage insulating gloves
required in the proposed rule of July 16, 2004.
Proposed Sec. 18.54(f)(4) retains the July 16, 2004 requirement in
proposed Sec. 18.54(f)(4) for the use of double-jacketed high-voltage
trailing cables used on high-voltage continuous mining machines, and
adds technical specifications for the use of single-jacketed high-
voltage trailing cables on such machines. We propose that single-
jacketed high voltage trailing cables would have a tear strength of
more than 100 pounds per inch and a tensile strength of more than 4000
pounds per square inch. These values exceed the minimum cable industry
standard values cited for typical extra-heavy-duty double-jacketed
cables. The single-jacketed cables that would be permitted under
proposed Sec. 18.54(f)(4) would produce trailing cables that are much
more durable than the double-jacketed trailing cables currently used on
the majority of high-voltage continuous mining machines in underground
coal mines. Our experience with single-jacketed cables has shown that
the strength and durability of the single jacketed cables reduce the
potential for cable damage. Damaged trailing cables must be immediately
repaired in order to be safe to use or removed from service. Cable
repairs take time away from production, and damaged cables can pose
serious fire and shock hazards to miners if not repaired in a timely
manner. A durable trailing cable that is less prone to physical damage
would benefit the industry and improve miner safety.
Compliance Cost Savings
Proposed Sec. 75.833 would result in annual net cost savings of
$33,920 to underground coal mine operators. The derivation of the
annual cost savings is described below.
Proposed Sec. 75.833(a) would require miners to use insulating
gloves or insulated cable handling tools while handling energized high-
voltage trailing cables. Proposed paragraph (a) would not require that
insulated cable handling tools be used in conjunction with high-voltage
insulating gloves. Proposed Sec. 75.833(b) would require that each
mine operator make available to miners handling energized high-voltage
trailing cables, high-voltage insulating gloves or insulated cable
handling tools. We do not expect that mine operators, under the
proposed rule, would stop purchasing gloves altogether, but rather that
they would decrease the quantity of gloves they now purchase and
increase their use of insulated cable handling tools. When rubber
gloves are used, proposed Sec. 75.833(c) would require that they be
tested every 30 days.
The PREA that accompanied the proposed rule issued on July 16,
2004, noted that the proper type of gloves to handle high-voltage
trailing cables includes a pair of rubber and a pair of leather gloves.
The rubber gloves are put on first; then the leather gloves are put
over the rubber gloves in order to provide protection. We estimated
that, on average, a pair of rubber gloves would cost approximately $70
and would last for about six months. We also estimated that, on
average, the cost of a pair of leather gloves was approximately $30 and
the life of the gloves would be one month. Thus, one person would need
two pairs of rubber gloves and 12 pairs of leather gloves per year,
costing $500 [($70 x 2) + ($30 x 12)]. Based on a testing cost of $10
per
[[Page 15363]]
pair of rubber gloves, the annual cost to test a pair of gloves is
estimated to be $120 ($10 x 12). Operators that use some type of
insulated cable handling tool are assumed to use a hook that, on
average, costs approximately $90 per hook.
Since the proposed rule issued on July 16, 2004 would have required
mine operators to purchase gloves, we estimated in the PREA that
accompanied the July 16, 2004 proposed rule that there would be five
persons, each needing a pair of rubber and leather gloves, for every
section where a high-voltage continuous mining machine operated. Since
proposed Sec. 75.833(b) would not require that mine operators purchase
gloves, we estimate that for each section where a high-voltage
continuous mining machine operates, the mine operator would decrease
the purchase and testing of gloves from 5 to 3 pairs and would increase
the use of insulated cable handling tools. In addition, for every
section where a high-voltage continuous mining machine operates, we
also estimate that the mine operator would purchase 2 hooks per year.
Table IV-1 shows estimated annual net cost savings for mine operators
under the requirements of proposed Sec. 75.833.
Table IV-1.--Sec. 75.833 Annual Net Cost Savings Related To Use of
Insulated Cable Handling Equipment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Net cost Annual net
Emp. size category sections savings per cost
per HVCM section \a\ savings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 to 500........................ 30 $1,060 $31,800
>500............................. 2 1,060 2,120
--------------------------------------
Total........................ ........... ........... 33,920
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Net Cost Savings of $1,060 per section = [(($500 annual gloves cost
per person x 2 pairs) + ($120 to test rubber gloves/yr. x 2 pairs))--
($90 cost per hook x 2 hooks per year)].
We have preliminarily determined that underground coal mine
operators would not incur any costs to comply with proposed Sec.
18.54(f)(4). Although the cost of the single-jacketed TPU cable is
approximately 15 percent higher than the double-jacketed cable, there
are no compliance costs associated with proposed Sec. 18.54(f)(4)
because mine operators would have the option of using either a double-
jacketed trailing cable or a single-jacketed trailing cable. Thus,
after the rule becomes effective, mine operators currently using a
double-jacketed trailing cable can continue to do so, and those
operators that intend to purchase high-voltage continuous mining
machines in the future will have the choice of what type of high-
voltage trailing cable they want to use.
Feasibility
We have concluded that the requirements of the proposed rule are
both technologically and economically feasible.
This proposed rule is not a technology-forcing standard and does
not involve activities on the frontiers of scientific knowledge.
Insulated cable handling tools are available for purchase that could be
used in place of high-voltage insulating gloves. Thus, we believe that
this proposed rule is technologically feasible.
This rulemaking would provide an annual net cost savings of $33,920
to underground coal mine operators whose 2003 annual revenues are
estimated at $9 billion. Therefore, this rulemaking is economically
feasible.
IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 as amended
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), we
have analyzed the impact of the proposed rule on small businesses.
Further, we have made a determination with respect to whether or not we
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. Under the SBREFA amendments to the RFA, we
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, we must develop a regulatory flexibility
analysis.
Definition of a Small Mine
Under the RFA, in analyzing the impact of a rule on small entities,
we must use the Small Business Administration (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. We have not taken such an action and hence are required to use
the SBA definition.
The SBA defines a small entity in the mining industry as an
establishment with 500 or fewer employees. All 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.
We have looked at the impacts of our rules on a subset of mines
with 500 or fewer employees--those with fewer than 20 employees, which
we and the mining community have traditionally referred to as ``small
mines.'' These small mines differ from larger mines not only in the
number of employees, but also in economies of scale in material
produced, in the type and amount of production equipment, and in supply
inventory. Therefore, their costs of complying with our rules and the
impact of our rules on them will also tend to be different. It is for
this reason that ``small mines,'' as traditionally defined by our
agency, are of special concern to us.
No underground coal mine operator having fewer than 20 employees
has applied for a PFM to use a high-voltage continuous mining machine.
In addition, in the future, we do not expect mine operators in this
size class to use a high-voltage continuous mining machine. Therefore,
we conclude that the proposed rule would have no economic impact on
mine operators in this size class. We limit the remainder of the
analysis to impacts on ``small entities'' with respect to SBA's
definition of a small mine (those employing 500 or fewer workers). We
conclude that we can certify that the proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of these small
entities that are covered by this rulemaking.
Factual Basis for Certification
Our analysis of impacts on ``small entities'' begins with a
``screening'' analysis. The screening compares the
[[Page 15364]]
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 or savings are less than one
percent of the estimated revenues, we believe it is generally
appropriate to conclude that there is no significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. When estimated compliance costs
or savings exceed one percent of revenues, it tends to indicate that
further analysis may be warranted.
The 2003 production for underground coal mine operators that employ
500 or fewer employees was 299,300,775 tons. Using a 2003 price of
underground coal of $26.71 per ton, the 2003 underground coal revenues
for these mine operators is estimated to be approximately $8
billion.\1\ Based on SBA's definition of a small mine the proposed rule
cost savings of $33,920 are substantially less than 1 percent (less
than 0.0001 percent) of estimated revenues of underground coal mine
operators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 2003 underground coal price of $26.71 can be found in
Table 28 of the Department of Energy/Energy Information Agency,
Annual Coal Report 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The reproposed provisions do not contain any information collection
requirements.
VI. Other Regulatory Considerations
A. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This proposed rule does not include any Federal mandate that may
result in increased expenditures by State, local, or tribal
governments, nor would it increase private sector expenditures by more
than $100 million annually, nor would it significantly or uniquely
affect small governments. Accordingly, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) requires no further agency action or
analysis.
B. The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999:
Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families
This proposed rule would have no affect on family well-being or
stability, marital commitment, parental rights or authority, or income
or poverty of families and children. Accordingly, section 654 of the
Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999 (5 U.S.C.
601 note) requires no further agency action, analysis, or assessment.
C. Executive Order 12630: Government Actions and Interference With
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights
This proposed rule would not implement a policy with takings
implications. Accordingly, Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions
and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,
requires no further agency action or analysis.
D. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule was written to provide a clear legal standard
for affected conduct and was carefully reviewed to eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguities, so as to minimize litigation and undue burden
on the Federal court system. Accordingly, this proposed rule would meet
the applicable standards provided in section 3 of Executive Order
12988, Civil Justice Reform.
E. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This proposed rule would have no adverse impact on children.
Accordingly, Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, as amended by Executive
Orders 13229 and 13296, requires no further agency action or analysis.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This proposed rule would not have ``federalism implications''
because it would not ``have substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.'' Accordingly, Executive Order 13132, Federalism,
requires no further agency action or analysis.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This proposed rule would not have ``tribal implications'' because
it would not ``have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal government and Indian tribes.'' Accordingly, Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, requires no further agency action or analysis.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
We have reviewed this proposed rule for its impact on the supply,
distribution, and use of energy because it applies to the underground
coal mining sector. Because this proposed rule would result in yearly
net cost savings to the coal mining industry, this proposed rule would
neither reduce the supply of coal nor increase its price. This proposed
rule is not a ``significant energy action'' because it would not be
``likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy * * * (including a shortfall in supply,
price increases, and increased use of foreign supplies).'' Accordingly,
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use, requires no
further agency action or analysis.
I. Executive Order 13272: Proper Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking
We have thoroughly reviewed this proposed rule to assess and take
appropriate account of its potential impact on small businesses, small
governmental jurisdictions, and small organizations. As discussed in
Chapter V of this PREA, we have determined and certified that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, Executive Order
13272, Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,
requires no further agency action or analysis.
List of Subjects
30 CFR Part 18
Approval regulations, Electric motor-driven mine equipment and
accessories, Mine safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
30 CFR Part 75
Electric power, Fire prevention, High-voltage continuous mining
machines, Incorporation by reference, Mandatory safety standards, Mine
safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Underground coal mines.
Dated: March 20, 2006.
David G. Dye,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Mine Safety and
Health Administration proposes to further amend the proposed rule
published at 69 FR 42812, July 16, 2004, as follows:
[[Page 15365]]
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 and 961.
2. In proposed Sec. 18.54, revise paragraphs (f) introductory text
and (f)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 18.54 High-voltage continuous mining machines.
* * * * *
(f) High-Voltage Trailing Cable(s). High-voltage trailing cable(s)
must conform to the ampacity and outer dimensions in accordance with
the Insulated Cable Engineers Association (ICEA) Standard ICEA S-75-
381/National Electrical Manufacturer's Association (NEMA) Standard NEMA
WC 58-1997. The physical properties of the double-jacketed cable
required in (f)(4)(i), must also be in accordance with ICEA S-75-381/
NEMA WC 58-1997. The Director of the Federal Register approves this
incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51. You may inspect a copy of these incorporated documents at any
of the following locations: MSHA Coal Mine Safety and Health District
Office, MSHA Approval and Certification Center, the Office of
Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard,
Arlington, VA; or at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For more information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
You may
also purchase a copy from Global Engineering Documents, 15 Inverness
Way East, Englewood, Colorado 80112. In addition, the cable must be
constructed with:
(4) Either a double-jacketed or single-jacketed cable as follows:
(i) Double jacket. A double-jacketed cable consisting of reinforced
outer and inner protective layers. The inner layer must be a
distinctive color from the outer layer. The color black must not be
used for either protective layer.
(ii) Single jacket. A single layer jacketed cable with a tear
strength of more than 100 pounds per inch thickness, and a tensile
strength of more than 4000 pounds per square inch. The cable jacket
must not be black in color.
* * * * *
PART 75--MANDATORY SAFETY STANDARDS--UNDERGROUND COAL MINES
1. The authority citation for part 75 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811.
2. Revise proposed Sec. 75.828 to read as follows:
Sec. 75.828 Trailing cable pulling.
The trailing cable must be de-energized prior to being pulled by
any equipment other than the continuous mining machine. Cable
manufacturers' recommended pulling procedures must be followed when
pulling the trailing cable with such equipment.
3. Revise proposed Sec. 75.833 to read as follows:
Sec. 75.833 Handling high-voltage trailing cables.
(a) Cable Handling. Miners must not handle energized trailing
cables unless they are wearing high-voltage insulating gloves, which
include the rubber gloves and leather outer protector gloves, or are
using insulated cable handling tools that meet the requirements of
paragraphs (c) or (d) of this section.
(b) Availability. Each mine operator must make high-voltage
insulating gloves or insulated cable handling tools available to miners
handling energized high-voltage trailing cables.
(c) High-voltage insulating gloves. High-voltage insulating gloves
provided under paragraph (b) of this section must meet the following
requirements:
(1) The rubber gloves must be designed and maintained to have a
voltage rating of at least Class 1 (7,500 volts) and electrically
tested every 30 days in accordance with publication ASTM F496-02a,
``Standard Specification for In-Service Care of Insulating Gloves and
Sleeves'' (2002) which is incorporated by reference. You may inspect a
copy at any MSHA Coal Mine Safety and Health District office, at the
MSHA Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 1100 Wilson
Boulevard, Arlington, VA, or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800
North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC. You may also
purchase a copy from the American Society for Testing and Materials,
100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428-2959. The
Director of the Federal Register has approved this incorporation by
reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) The rubber glove portion must be air-tested at the beginning of
each shift to ensure its effectiveness.
(3) Both the leather protector and rubber insulating gloves must be
visually examined before each use for signs of damage or defects.
(4) Damaged rubber gloves must be removed from the underground area
of the mine or destroyed. Leather protectors must be maintained in good
condition or replaced.
(d) Insulated cable handling tools. Insulated cable handling tools
provided under paragraph (b) of this section must be:
(1) Rated and properly maintained to withstand at least 7,500
volts;
(2) Designed and manufactured for cable handling;
(3) Visually examined before each use for signs of damage or
defects; and
(4) Removed from the underground area of the mine or destroyed if
damaged or defective.
[FR Doc. E6-4359 Filed 3-27-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-43-P
