Proposed Rule2021-18791
Safety Program for Surface Mobile Equipment
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
September 9, 2021
Issuing agencies
Labor DepartmentMine Safety and Health Administration
Abstract
The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is proposing to require that mine operators employing six or more miners develop and implement a written safety program for mobile and powered haulage equipment (excluding belt conveyors) at surface mines and surface areas of underground mines. The written safety program would include actions mine operators would take to identify hazards and risks to reduce accidents, injuries, and fatalities related to surface mobile equipment. The proposal would offer mine operators flexibility to devise a safety program that is appropriate for their specific mining conditions and operations.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 172 (Thursday, September 9, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 172 (Thursday, September 9, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50496-50513]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18791]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration
30 CFR Parts 56, 57 and 77
[Docket No. MSHA-2018-0016]
RIN 1219-AB91
Safety Program for Surface Mobile Equipment
AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is proposing
to require that mine operators employing six or more miners develop and
implement a written safety program for mobile and powered haulage
equipment (excluding belt conveyors) at surface mines and surface areas
of underground mines. The written safety program would include actions
mine operators would take to identify hazards and risks to reduce
accidents, injuries, and fatalities related to surface mobile
equipment. The proposal would offer mine operators flexibility to
devise a safety program that is appropriate for their specific mining
conditions and operations.
DATES: Comments must be received or postmarked by midnight Eastern Time
on November 8, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments and informational materials, identified by
RIN 1219-AB91 or Docket No. MSHA-2018-0016 by one of the following
methods:
<bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
<bullet> Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ceb4b4839d868fe3ada1a3a3aba0babd8eaaa1a2e0a9a1b8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="215b5b6c7269600c424e4c4c444f555261454e4d0f464e57">[email protected]</span></a>.
<bullet> Mail: MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and
Variances, 201 12th Street South, Suite 4E401, Arlington, Virginia
22202-5452.
<bullet> Hand Delivery or Courier: 201 12th Street South, Suite
4E401, Arlington, Virginia, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday, except federal holidays. Before visiting MSHA in
person, call 202-693-9455 to make an appointment, in keeping with the
Department of Labor's COVID-19 policy. Special health precautions may
be required.
<bullet> Fax: 202-693-9441.
Instructions: All submissions must include RIN 1219-AB91 or Docket
No. MSHA 2018-0016. Do not include personal or proprietary information
that you do not wish to disclose publicly. If a commenter marks parts
of a comment as ``business confidential'' information, MSHA will not
post those parts of the comment. Otherwise, MSHA will post all comments
without change, including personal information.
Docket: For access to the docket to read comments and background
documents, go to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>. The docket can also be
reviewed 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.
Before visiting MSHA in person, call 202-693-9455 to make an
appointment, in keeping with the Department of Labor's COVID-19 policy.
Special health precautions may be required.
Email Notification: To subscribe to receive an email notification
when MSHA publishes rulemaking documents in the Federal Register, go to
<a href="https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDOL/subscriber/new">https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDOL/subscriber/new</a>.
Information Collection Requirements: Comments concerning the
information collection requirements of this proposal
[[Page 50497]]
must be clearly identified with RIN 1219-AB91 or Docket No. MSHA 2018-
0016, and be sent to both MSHA and the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
<bullet> Comments to MSHA may be sent by one of the methods in the
ADDRESSES section above.
<bullet> Comments to OMB may be sent by mail to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC
20503, Attn: Desk Officer for DOL MSHA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Senk, Director, Office of
Standards, Regulations and Variances, MSHA at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#194a7c777237537c6a6a707a78597d7675377e766f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="085b6d666326426d7b7b616b69486c6764266f677e">[email protected]</span></a>
(email), 202-693-9440 (voice) or 202-693-9441 (facsimile).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background Information
A. Request for Information (RFI)
B. Comments Received on the RFI
C. Workplace Safety Programs
D. Written Safety Program for Surface Mobile Equipment
II. Section-by-Section Analysis
A. Sections 56.23000, 57.23000, and 77.2100--Purpose and Scope
B. Sections 56.23001, 57.23001, and 77.2101--Definitions
C. Sections 56.23002, 57.23002, and 77.2102--Written Safety
Program
D. Sections 56.23003, 57.23003, and 77.2103--Requirements for
Written Safety Program
E. Sections 56.23004, 57.23004, and 77.2104--Record and
Inspection
F. Request for Comments
III. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review; and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
A. Regulated Industry Description
B. Benefits
C. Compliance Costs
D. Net Benefits
E. Request for Comments
IV. Feasibility
A. Technological Feasibility
B. Economic Feasibility
V. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA) and Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) and Executive Order
13272: Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking
A. Definition of a Small Mine
B. Factual Basis for Certification
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
A. Summary
B. Procedural Details
VII. Regulatory Alternative
VIII. Other Regulatory Considerations
A. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
B. The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of
1999: Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families
C. Executive Order 12630: Government Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights
D. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
E. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
IX. References
I. Background Information
At surface mines and at surface areas of underground mines, a wide
range of mobile and powered haulage equipment is in use. Examples of
such equipment are bulldozers, front-end loaders, skid steers, and haul
trucks. While accidents at mines are declining, accidents involving
mobile and powered haulage equipment are still a leading cause of
fatalities in mining. Of all 739 fatalities that occurred at U.S. mines
between 2003 and 2018, 109 were caused by hazards related to working
near or operating mobile and powered haulage equipment at mines with
six or more miners. To reduce the number of injuries and fatalities
involving mobile and powered haulage equipment, the Mine Safety and
Health Administration (MSHA) has launched several actions, including
providing technical assistance, developing training materials, and
gathering information from the public and mining stakeholders. MSHA is
now proposing a rule to improve safety in the use of surface mobile
equipment, defined as mobile and powered haulage equipment (except belt
conveyors), at surface mines and surface areas of underground mines.
This proposal is based on the information gathered from many
stakeholders; the details are presented in the section-by-section
analysis portion of this preamble.
A. Request for Information (RFI)
On June 26, 2018, MSHA published a request for information (RFI),
Safety Improvement Technologies for Mobile Equipment at Surface Mines,
and for Belt Conveyors at Surface and Underground Mines (83 FR 29716),
that focused on technologies for reducing accidents involving mobile
equipment at surface mines and surface areas of underground mines, and
belt conveyors at surface and underground mines.
The RFI also requested information from the mining community on
what types of engineering controls are available, how to implement such
engineering controls, and how these controls could be used in mobile
equipment and belt conveyors to reduce accidents, fatalities, and
injuries. MSHA sought information and data on: (1) Seat belt interlock
systems or other controls that affect equipment operation when the seat
belt is not properly fastened; (2) collision warning systems and
collision avoidance systems that may reduce collisions or prevent
accidents by decreasing blind areas that are invisible to equipment
operators due to direct line of sight or other reasons; (3)
technologies that would provide equipment operators better information
regarding their location in relation to the edge of highwalls or dump
points; (4) use of autonomous mobile equipment at surface mines; (5)
technologies that provide additional protections from accidents related
to working near or around belt conveyors; and (6) training and
technical assistance that improve equipment operators' awareness of
hazards at the mine site, and assure miners lock and tag conveyor belts
before performing maintenance work.
To encourage additional public participation, the Agency held six
stakeholder meetings and one webinar in August and September 2018. The
meetings were held in Birmingham, Alabama; Dallas, Texas; Reno, Nevada;
Beckley, West Virginia; Albany, New York; and Arlington, Virginia.
B. Comments Received on the RFI
All commenters supported MSHA's focused efforts to improve miner
safety related to the operation of surface mobile equipment. Some
emphasized the use of technologies to achieve this goal, while others
argued for the importance of non-technological interventions such as
safety programs to bring behavioral and cultural changes. Commenters
also differed in how technological and non-technological interventions
should be implemented.
Several commenters supported incorporating new technologies into
the workplace to reduce accidents, injuries, and fatalities. One
commenter noted that the use of current automobile technologies such as
collision avoidance systems, collision warning systems, seat belt
warning signals, and other engineering controls could add much-needed
improvement in preventing collision accidents or mitigating their
impacts.
A majority of commenters noted, however, that the application of
engineering controls or technologies needs further review by MSHA and
the National Institute for Occupational
[[Page 50498]]
Safety and Health (NIOSH) before any regulatory changes are made. One
commenter noted that because the issues MSHA raised vary at different
mines and with different types of equipment and operations, it is
critical to understand how specific hazards at a mine would be
addressed through new technologies. Other commenters asserted that the
best outcomes occur when mine operators and their employees partner
with other stakeholders such as NIOSH and equipment manufacturers, to
introduce innovative solutions into the workplace through the use of
new technologies. One commenter noted that to comprehensively address
solutions, MSHA needs to acknowledge certain factors that can limit
mine operators' ability to introduce new safety technology effectively.
These obstacles include mistrust of technology by the workforce,
inadequate testing of technology before full implementation, and
challenges in communicating to miners why technological improvements in
equipment operation create a safer work environment. A trade
association recommended that MSHA proceed with caution to avoid
excessive costs and unintended consequences that do not address the
root causes of accidents.
On the other hand, a number of commenters noted that non-
technological interventions such as safety programs are as important,
or even more important, than technology in improving safety in the use
of surface mobile equipment and reducing accidents, injuries, and
fatalities. A mining coalition commented that because human factors are
a major contributor to accidents, properly enforced comprehensive
safety programs are a significant component of the solution, with or
without new technology. This mining coalition continued to note that
mining's major safety advances would ``come from consistently improving
behavior and culture across the industry.'' The mining coalition also
stated on the basis of its members' experiences that safety does best
when mine operators develop and implement their own comprehensive
safety programs. Another commenter noted that effective safety programs
work because they create incentives for compliance and disincentives
for violations.
In addition, one commenter observed that mine operators who develop
and implement safety programs do so with the goal of preventing
injuries, fatalities, and the suffering these accidents cause miners,
their families, and their communities. For these mine operators, noted
the commenter, preventing harm to their miners is more than just
compliance with safety requirements; it reflects a culture of safety.
Indeed, according to the commenter, this culture of safety derives from
a commitment to a systematic, effective, and comprehensive management
of safety at mines with the full participation of the miners.
MSHA has been most persuaded by comments on the use of safety
programs. The Agency agrees with these commenters that mine operators
should be allowed to tailor safety programs specifically to their
mining conditions and operations, so that operators could: (1)
Systematically and continuously evaluate their mine operations to
identify hazards and (2) determine how to eliminate or mitigate risks
and hazards related to operating and working near surface mobile
equipment, which includes mobile and powered haulage equipment (except
belt conveyors). The Agency further agrees that such a flexible
approach to reducing hazards and risks (e.g., not imposing universal
mandates) would be more effective since mine operators would be able to
develop and implement safety programs that work for their operation,
mining conditions, and miners. Taking into account all comments and
information received, this proposal would require written safety
programs for surface mobile equipment at surface mines and surface
areas of underground mines with six or more miners.
In the 2018 RFI, MSHA sought information on safety issues related
to belt conveyors. After reviewing the comments, the Agency has
concluded, at this time, that the safety issues surrounding the
operation of belt conveyors can be better addressed through best
practices and training than through rulemaking. No belt conveyor is
covered under this proposed rule.
MSHA solicits comments regarding the Agency's decision to exclude
belt conveyors from the proposed rule. Please provide the rationale and
any supporting documentation in your comment.
C. Workplace Safety Programs
Many resources are available for employers to provide a safe
workplace. MSHA has reviewed several types of organizations that
provide guidance on safety programs: (1) Consensus standards
organizations (e.g., American Society of Safety Professionals (ASSP),
Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems, ANSI/ASSP Z10-2012
(R2017); and the International Standards Organization (ISO),
Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems--Requirements With
Guidance for Use (ISO 45001:2018)); (2) industry organizations (e.g.,
the National Mining Association's CORESafety and Health Management
System); and (3) government agencies (e.g., the Department of
Transportation, 49 CFR part 270). The Department of Labor's
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) also has developed
recommended practices for developing safety and health programs
(<a href="https://www.osha.gov/shpguidelines/">https://www.osha.gov/shpguidelines/</a>).
Generally, safety programs recommended by these organizations share
the following principles. First, safety programs should address safety
proactively rather than reactively. In other words, addressing problems
only after an employee is injured is less effective than finding and
fixing hazards before injuries and fatalities occur. Second, safety
programs should take into account work processes and conditions
specific to the workplaces and should make sense for the organizations
that implement them. Third, safety programs should not be static and
should be continually improving, based on monitoring and evaluating
work performance and safety outcomes, scanning and assessing risks of
mining conditions and operations, and evaluating use of emerging
technologies.
In addition, most of the safety programs include a set of
interacting elements that are designed to establish and achieve similar
safety goals. Specifically, a safety program includes a common set of
elements that focus on identifying hazards in the workplace and
developing a plan for preventing and controlling those hazards.
Examples of common elements include management commitment; worker
involvement; hazard identification, prevention, and remediation,
including workplace examinations for violations of mandatory safety and
health standards; worker training and education; and program
evaluation.
Based on its review of best practices and guidance on safety
programs, together with comments gathered from a variety of
stakeholders in mining communities, MSHA has concluded that developing
and implementing a written safety program for surface mobile equipment
at mines would contribute to advancing miners' safety and health. For
this reason, MSHA is now issuing a proposal that would require mine
operators with six or more miners to develop, implement, and update a
written safety program for surface mobile equipment.
[[Page 50499]]
D. Written Safety Program for Surface Mobile Equipment
This proposal would address hazards related to mobile equipment and
powered haulage equipment (except belt conveyors) used at surface mines
and in surface areas of underground mines. MSHA believes that mine
safety would be substantially improved when mine operators implement
written safety programs that promote a culture of safety, take a
holistic approach to safety and health, and encourage technological
solutions to prevent or mitigate hazards. The Agency also believes that
miners' safety would be improved if mine operators: (1) Continually
evaluate their operations to identify hazards resulting from operating
and working near surface mobile equipment and (2) identify controls
that prevent or mitigate these hazards, including the use of technology
to reduce accidents, injuries, and fatalities.
The proposed written safety program would be required only for
operators employing six or more miners. Over the years, MSHA has
observed that mine operators with five or fewer miners generally have a
limited inventory of surface mobile equipment. These operations also
tend to have less complex mining operations, with fewer mobile
equipment hazards that would necessitate a written safety program.
Although these mine operators are not required to have a written safety
program, MSHA encourages mine operators with five or fewer miners to
assure that surface mobile equipment hazards at their mines would be
mitigated to the greatest extent possible. For mines employing five or
fewer miners, MSHA's Educational Field and Small Mine Services (EFSMS)
would provide assistance in the development and improvement of safety
programs for mine operators and contractors in the mining community.
Also, MSHA's EFSMS staff would encourage state grantees to focus on
providing training to address hazards and risks involving surface
mobile equipment in small mining operations.
The written safety program would list actions that mine operators
would take to identify hazards and reduce risks, develop equipment
maintenance and repair schedules, evaluate technologies, and train
miners. The proposal would provide mine operators with the flexibility
to tailor the written safety program to meet the specific needs of
their operations and unique mining conditions. Under the proposal, mine
operators would be required to evaluate and update the written safety
program whenever necessary to manage safety risks associated with their
surface mobile equipment appropriately.
A written safety program is an important part of a mine operator's
overall safety program to prevent workplace injuries, illnesses, or
deaths. A written safety program, as opposed to an oral one, is one
that's more likely to be followed by mine operators and miners. The
specific contents of an operator's written safety program do not need
MSHA approval, but a written program serves other purposes beyond
simply meeting regulatory requirements because it: (1) Reinforces that
the mine operator/management is serious about safety; (2) provides
benchmarks against which safety performance can be measured and
verified; and (3) prevents confusion about authority, responsibility,
and accountability. Furthermore, a written safety program which is
reviewed regularly can clarify policy, create consistency and
continuity, provide a basis for making decisions relative to when
changes are needed, and serve as a checkpoint whenever there is a
question regarding the use of surface mobile equipment at surface mines
and surface areas of underground mines.
As is MSHA's practice, the Agency would provide mine operators with
guidance needed to develop, implement, evaluate, and update their
safety programs, if requested. MSHA would also work with mining
industry stakeholders as it develops materials and templates to assist
mine operators.
II. Section-by-Section Analysis
This proposal would require mine operators to develop a written
safety program in which they would systematically identify and evaluate
risks of surface mobile equipment used at their mines to eliminate or
mitigate safety hazards and reduce accidents, injuries, and fatalities.
The safety program should be designed so that it promotes and supports
a safety culture at the mine. Since each mine has a unique environment,
MSHA is proposing to allow each mine operator the flexibility to
develop a safety program that addresses its specific types of surface
mobile equipment and mining conditions and operations.
A. Sections 56.23000, 57.23000 and 77.2100--Scope and Purpose
Proposed Sec. Sec. 56.23000, 57.23000 and 77.2100 address the
purpose and scope of the proposal. The purpose of the safety program is
to reduce accidents, injuries, and fatalities related to the operation
of surface mobile equipment. Operators covered by this part would be
required to develop, implement, and update a written safety program for
mobile equipment used at surface mines and at surface areas of
underground mines.
MSHA recognizes that mine operations are diverse, with varying
mining methods, mining conditions and operations, types of mobile
equipment, and mined commodities. Under this proposal, mine operators
would have the flexibility to develop effective safety programs that
best meet the unique conditions of their mines to prevent accidents,
injuries, and fatalities involving surface mobile equipment. Indeed,
mine operators with existing effective safety programs would likely
need to make few adjustments, if any, to their existing programs and
practices to meet the requirements of this proposal.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 56.23000, 57.23000 and 77.2100 would require
mine operators employing six or more miners to develop a written safety
program. Based on Agency experience and data, a mine operator with five
or fewer miners would generally have a limited inventory of surface
mobile equipment. These operators would also have less complex mining
operations, with fewer mobile equipment hazards that would necessitate
a written safety program. Although these mine operators are not
required to have a written safety program, MSHA would encourage
operators with five or fewer miners to have safety programs. As stated
earlier, for mines with five or fewer miners, MSHA's EFSMS would
provide compliance assistance to operators in developing a safety
program, such as making examples of model safety programs available at
the Agency's website. Also, MSHA would encourage its state grantees to
focus on providing training to address hazards and risks involving
surface mobile equipment in small mining operations.
MSHA believes that these small mine operators would be able to
accomplish the goals of this proposal through existing requirements
(for example, 30 CFR parts 56, 57, and 77) relating to the use of
written hazard warnings, oral instruction, signs and posted warnings,
walkaround training, or other appropriate means that alert persons to
site-specific hazards at the mine. However, to assure that surface
mobile equipment hazards at these mines are mitigated to the greatest
extent possible, MSHA intends to use its EFSMS resources as stated
earlier.
The proposal is premised on MSHA's experience and data that, as a
mine operation grows, the number and size of surface mobile equipment
used at the mine usually increase, as do the complexity of the hazards
that occur at
[[Page 50500]]
the mine. MSHA believes that mines employing six or more miners often
have more complex mining operations and more surface mobile equipment.
MSHA estimates that about 41 percent of all mines in the U.S.
employ six or more miners and that about 88 percent of all miners in
the U.S. work at mines employing six or more miners. MSHA requests
comments on whether the Agency should require all mine operators,
regardless of size, to develop a written safety program. MSHA is
particularly interested in comments on the economic feasibility of
requiring operators with five or fewer miners to develop a written
safety program. MSHA is also interested in comments and suggestions on
alternatives or best practices that all mines might use to develop
safety programs (whether written or not) for surface mobile equipment.
MSHA solicits comments on requiring a non-written safety program for
mines with five or fewer miners. Please provide the rationale and any
supporting documentation in the comment. If a commenter marks parts of
a comment as ``business confidential'' information, MSHA will not post
those parts of the comment.
B. Sections 56.23001, 57.23001 and 77.2101--Definitions
Proposed Sec. Sec. 56.23001, 57.23001 and 77.2101 would define
responsible person as a person with authority and responsibility to
evaluate and update a written safety program for surface mobile
equipment. MSHA believes that designating a person with authority and
responsibility to evaluate and update the safety program as necessary
would help assure the successful development and maintenance of a
safety program that addresses and eliminates surface mobile equipment
hazards at a particular mine. This individual should be able to
communicate the operator's commitment to safety and the importance of
miners' involvement in the program to prevent or mitigate hazards. The
responsible person must communicate the goals of the safety program to
all miners, including contractors. The responsible person would need to
have the experience and knowledge about mining conditions, including
surface mobile equipment, necessary to develop and manage the safety
program, as well as experience and knowledge necessary to maintain and
evaluate any controls and best practices.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 56.23001, 57.23001 and 77.2101 would define
surface mobile equipment as wheeled, skid-mounted, track-mounted, or
rail-mounted equipment capable of moving or being moved, and any
powered equipment that transports people, equipment or materials,
excluding belt conveyors, at surface mines and in surface areas of
underground mines.
C. Sections 56.23002, 57.23002 and 77.2102--Written Safety Program
Under proposed Sec. Sec. 56.23002(a), 57.23002(a) and 77.2102(a),
mine operators would develop and implement a written safety program for
surface mobile equipment within 6 months after the effective date of
the final rule. MSHA requests comments on whether the 6-month period
provides mine operators sufficient time to develop and implement a
written safety program that includes the elements in proposed
Sec. Sec. 56.23003(a),/57.23003(a) and 77.2103(a), and rationales for
the comments.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 56.23002(b), 57.23002(b) and 77.2102(b) would
also require mine operators to designate a responsible person as
described above within 6 months after the effective date of the final
rule. MSHA requests comments on whether this provides mine operators
sufficient time to meet the proposed requirements, and rationales for
the comments.
D. Sections 56.23003, 57.23003 and 77.2103--Requirements for Written
Safety Program
Proposed Sec. Sec. 56.23003(a), 57.23003(a) and 77.2103(a) would
require a written safety program for surface mobile equipment to
include four types of actions that mine operators would take in order
to reduce accidents, injuries, and fatalities and to improve miners'
safety.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 56.23003(a)(1), 57.23003(a)(1) and
77.2103(a)(1) would require the safety program to include actions that
would identify and analyze hazards and reduce the resulting risks
related to the movement and operation of surface mobile equipment.
Specifically, the proposal would require mine operators to identify,
collect, and review information about hazards at their mines. These
actions could include review of accident data and information on close
calls or near misses, and any operational or maintenance accidents at
their mines. Based on the information collected, mine operators would
be able to develop a program that more specifically addresses
conditions at their mines and measures to eliminate, prevent, or
mitigate hazards.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 56.23003(a)(2), 57.23003(a)(2) and
77.2103(a)(2) would require operators to develop and maintain
procedures and schedules for routine maintenance and non-routine
repairs for surface mobile equipment. Operators must comply with MSHA's
existing requirements for maintenance and repair, which include but are
not limited to 30 CFR 56.14100; 56.14105; 56.14211; 57.14100; 57.14105;
57.14211; 77.404(a); 77.404(c); 77.410(c); 77.1606(a) and (c);
77.1607(l); 77.1607(q); 77.405(a) and (b); 77.502; and 77.1302(b).
Under this proposal, the mine operator would need to integrate existing
compliance processes with any manufacturer's recommendations into the
safety program and to assure that hazards in all phases of work be
examined and analyzed. Existing processes include procedures for
maintaining brakes and steering components, as well as procedures that
assure pre-operational checks of equipment are conducted and then
defects are corrected.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 56.23003(a)(3), 57.23003(a)(3) and
77.2103(a)(3) would require that the program include actions the mine
operator would take to evaluate currently available and newly emerging
feasible technologies that can enhance safety and evaluate whether to
adopt them. The safety program would include a process by which
operators would periodically evaluate new and existing technologies
that could enhance safety.
Examples of these technologies could include seat belt interlocks
that affect equipment operation when a seat belt is not fastened;
seatbelt notification systems that alert management when the seatbelts
are not worn; collision warning systems and collision avoidance systems
that may prevent accidents by alerting equipment operators to hazards
located in blind areas; technologies that use Global Positioning
Systems to provide equipment operators with information regarding their
location when pushing and dumping material; as well as cameras,
curvilinear mirrors, and other vision enhancements. As stated earlier,
for mines with five or fewer employees that would not be subject to
this proposed rule, MSHA's EFSMS would provide assistance to operators
who are interested in developing a safety program. Also, as part of the
Agency's compliance assistance efforts, MSHA would work with operators
and provide information and technical assistance that would help them
investigate control options and the use of technology to prevent
accidents and injuries. Furthermore, MSHA would encourage its state
grantees to focus on providing training to address hazards and risks
involving surface mobile equipment in small mining operations.
[[Page 50501]]
Proposed Sec. Sec. 56.23003(a)(4), 57.23003(a)(4) and
77.2103(a)(4) would require operators to train miners and other persons
at the mine necessary to perform work (e.g., office workers) to
identify and address or avoid hazards related to surface mobile
equipment. Training provided under this section would be met through
existing training requirements, which include but are not limited to 30
CFR part 46--Training and Retraining of Miners Engaged in Shell
Dredging or Employed At Sand, Gravel, Surface Stone, Surface Clay,
Colloidal Phosphate, or Surface Limestone Mines (Sec. Sec. 46.3, 46.4,
46.5, 46.7, 46.8, 46.11, and 46.12); part 48--Training and Retraining
of Miners (Sec. Sec. 48.23, 48.25, 48.26, 48.27, 48.28, and 48.31);
and part 77 Mandatory Safety Standards, Surface Coal Mines and Surface
Work Areas of Underground Coal Mines (Sec. Sec. 77.404(b) and
77.1708).
Proposed Sec. Sec. 56.23003(b), 57.23003(b) and 77.2103(b) would
require the responsible person to evaluate and update the written
safety program at least annually or as mining conditions or practices
change, accidents or injuries occur, or as surface mobile equipment
changes, or modifications are made. This proposed requirement would
assure that the written safety program remains relevant and up to date.
If a mine operator determines that the controls and procedures
identified in the safety program are not effective (or are no longer
relevant), further measures would need to be identified and implemented
to assure miners' safety. Similarly, mine operators would also need to
evaluate safety programs during seasonal weather condition changes or
whenever work processes or practices change. In fact, best practices
shown by NIOSH, OSHA, and other voluntary consensus standards
organizations include ongoing evaluations of workplace activities and
processes for hazards. These ongoing evaluations could result in
identifying new hazards, taking corrective actions, and investigating
accidents and near-misses to determine root causes and making this
information available to all miners at the mines.
E. Sections 56.23004, 57.23004 and 77.2104--Record and Inspection
Proposed Sec. Sec. 56.23004, 57.23004 and 77.2104 would require
that the mine operator make available a copy of the written safety
program for inspection by authorized representatives of the Secretary,
miners, and representatives of miners, and provide a copy upon request.
F. Request for Comments
MSHA is interested in any information and data associated with
safety programs for surface mobile equipment. The Agency is
particularly interested in the aspects of the safety programs that work
best and are most effective. The Agency also is interested in comments
on MSHA's proposal to require a written safety program for mine
operators employing six or more miners. If a commenter marks parts of a
comment as ``business confidential'' information, MSHA will not post
those parts of the comment. The Agency is interested in receiving
comments from all members of the mining community and all interested
stakeholders. Where possible, please include specific examples to
support the rationale.
III. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review; and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
Executive Orders (E.O.) 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess
all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O.
13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits,
of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
Under E.O. 12866, a significant regulatory action is one that meets
any of a number of specified conditions, including the following:
Having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
creating a serious inconsistency or interfering with an action of
another agency, materially altering the budgetary impact of
entitlements or the rights of entitlement recipients, or raising novel
legal or policy issues. MSHA has determined that the proposal would not
be an economically significant regulatory action, pursuant to section
3(f) of E.O. 12866, because this proposal would not have an annual
effect of $100 million or more on the economy.
This section provides a summary of MSHA's cost and benefit
estimates of the proposal. The proposed rule is estimated to have a 10-
year total net benefit of $343.0 million at a 7 percent discount rate,
based on estimated benefits of $470.9 million and costs of $127.9
million. At that 7 percent discount rate, the estimated annualized net
benefit is $45.6 million (annualized benefits of $62.7 million and
annualized costs of $17.0 million). Supporting materials and data that
provide additional details on the methodology used to estimate the
costs, benefits, and other required analyses of the proposal are
included in the proposed rule docket at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=MSHA-2018-0016">https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=MSHA-2018-0016</a> and are posted on MSHA's website at <a href="https://www.msha.gov">https://www.msha.gov</a>.
A. Regulated Industry Description
The proposal would apply to surface mines and surface areas of
underground mines, for mines employing six or more miners. As of 2018,
there were 12,281 mines in the U.S.--1087 coal mines and 11,194 metal
and nonmetal (MNM) mines. Of those mines, 5,027 mines (about 41
percent) had six or more miners working and would be subject to this
proposal. Among a total of 223,289 workers at U.S. mines, 162,718 were
reported to be miners. About 88 percent of the miners were working at
mines with six or more miners. See Table 1 for additional details.
Table 1--Mines and Employment in 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Number of Total
mines miners employment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Total...................................................... 12,281 162,718 223,289
Subject to Proposed Rule:
Coal mines with six or more miners.......................... 584 25,626 46,178
MNM mines with six or more miners........................... 4,443 117,343 146,459
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ 5,027 142,969 192,637
-----------------------------------------------
Not Subject to Proposed Rule:
Coal mines with five or fewer miners........................ 503 1,379 7,238
-----------------------------------------------
[[Page 50502]]
MNM mines with five or fewer miners......................... 6,751 18,370 23,414
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ 7,254 19,749 30,652
-----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: MSHA MSIS Data (reported on MSHA Form 7000-2).
Table 2 shows that in 2018 mining revenues were $109.4 billion and
miners worked 415.1 million hours. MSHA estimates coal revenue at $27.2
billion using the production estimates multiplied by the revenue per
ton. For the MNM revenue figures, MSHA used the estimate of $82.2
billion from the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) annual commodity
report.
Table 2--Mining Revenues and Miner Hours in 2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Miner work
revenue ($ hours
billions) (millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coal mines.............................. $27.2 120.3
MNM mines............................... 82.2 294.8
-------------------------------
Total............................... 109.4 415.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: MSHA MSIS Data (total hours worked at mines and coal production
reported on MSHA Form 7000-2 at $35.99 per ton). USGS reported 2018
MNM revenues at $82.2 billion. (U.S. Geological Survey, 2019, Mineral
commodity summaries 2019: U.S. Geological Survey, 200 p., <a href="https://doi.org/10.3133/70202434">https://doi.org/10.3133/70202434</a>).
B. Benefits
MSHA believes that the proposed rule would improve miners' safety
in important ways. Numerous published professional articles about
safety describe the relationship between effective safety programs and
accident reduction. For example, Maxey (2013, p. 14) describes the
shared features of successful programs as follows: ``These basic
elements--management leadership, worker participation, hazard
identification and assessment, hazard prevention and control, education
and training, and program evaluation and improvement--are common to
almost all existing health and safety management programs. Each element
is important in ensuring the success of the overall program, and the
elements are interrelated and interdependent.'' \1\ MSHA's proposal
would require mine operators to develop and implement a written safety
program with six or more miners that covers the range of actions an
operator would take to systematically evaluate and address risks to
reduce accidents, injuries, and fatalities related to the operation of
or working near surface mobile equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Maxey, H. 2013. Safety & Small Business. The Compass. Pages
12-22. [<a href="https://ASEE.org">https://ASEE.org</a>.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed safety program would create benefits through several
mechanisms. First, the proposed safety program would include a variety
of actions an operator would take to identify hazards and assess risks
to reduce accidents, injuries, and fatalities. Second, MSHA believes
the process of developing and maintaining a safety program would help
create or improve a safety culture at the mine. As mine management and
miners work together to identify hazards and determine appropriate
controls to prevent or mitigate those hazards, they could come to share
beliefs, practices, and attitudes about safety and to promote a
positive safety culture.
In addition, MSHA believes that there would be additional
unquantifiable financial benefits, such as reduced insurance premiums
and decreased downtime after accidents, stemming from the collaborative
focus on safety by operators and miners.
MSHA is aware that some mine operators have developed safety
programs based on the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA)'s recommended practices, or on consensus standards. These
operators would have procedures in place already to continually
identify workplace hazards and evaluate risks. MSHA is also aware that
some states require, by either regulation or statute, a workplace
safety plan or program for some or all employers including mine
operators. Other states incentivize (through premium credits or public
recognition) and support (with free training and consultations) safety
programs.\2\ Of those states that require safety programs, most require
employers to develop procedures to identify controls to eliminate or
mitigate identified hazards and evaluate the effectiveness of existing
controls to determine whether they continue to protect employees.
Although MSHA does not know to what degree state programs may overlap
with this proposal, MSHA believes that some mine operators with
effective existing safety programs and processes would likely need to
make few, if any, adjustments to their programs to meet the
requirements of the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ OSHA, Safety and Health Programs in the States White Paper,
April 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accident Data and Forecast
Under 30 CFR part 50, mine operators are required to submit a
report of each accident, injury, and illness to MSHA within 10 working
days after an accident or occupational injury occurs or an occupational
illness is diagnosed. Based on the information collected from mine
operators' reports, the Agency has analyzed accident and injury trends
related to mining equipment, work locations, and tasks.
MSHA'S Quarterly Mine Injury and Worktime, Quarterly Reports (2018
report at <a href="https://arlweb.msha.gov/Stats/Part50/WQ/2018/MIWQ%20Report%20CY%202018.pdf">https://arlweb.msha.gov/Stats/Part50/WQ/2018/MIWQ%20Report%20CY%202018.pdf</a>) provides official data and definition
for injuries. The injury
[[Page 50503]]
occurrences are classified according to severity as follows:
1. FATAL: Occurrences resulting in death.
2. NFDL: Nonfatal occurrences with Days Lost (lost workdays). That
is, nonfatal injury occurrences that result in days away from work or
days of restricted work activity.
3. NDL: Occurrences with No Days Lost. That is, nonfatal injury
occurrences resulting in loss of consciousness or medical treatment
other than first aid, but not in any lost workdays.
For the period from 2003 to 2018, MSHA identified 109 fatalities
and 1,543 nonfatal injuries that involved surface mobile equipment at
mines employing six or more miners. Table 3 shows the annual number of
fatal and nonfatal injuries caused by operating or working near surface
mobile equipment at coal and MNM mines with six or more miners, from
2003 to 2018.
Table 3--Fatalities and Injuries Involving Surface Mobile Equipment at All Covered Mines: 2003-18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Fatalities NFDL NDL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003............................................................ 7 70 28
2004............................................................ 6 94 44
2005............................................................ 11 88 50
2006............................................................ 7 104 51
2007............................................................ 8 76 39
2008............................................................ 6 100 40
2009............................................................ 9 66 30
2010............................................................ 6 76 23
2011............................................................ 3 62 22
2012............................................................ 6 55 15
2013............................................................ 5 50 18
2014............................................................ 9 53 31
2015............................................................ 5 42 24
2016............................................................ 5 40 18
2017............................................................ 10 46 19
2018............................................................ 6 49 20
Total....................................................... 109 1071 472
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSHA developed 10-year baseline forecasts of injuries and
fatalities with the detailed coal and MNM data and the summary
information shown in the following paragraphs. Table 4 shows the
numbers of fatalities and injuries that MSHA projects would occur in
the absence of any changes in the existing regulation. See the full
Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA), which is available in
the docket, for the intermediary calculations and tables.
Table 4--Baseline Trend Forecast for Fatalities and injuries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonfatal Injuries
Year Fatalities -------------------------------
NFDL NDL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................................... 6 44 19
2............................................................... 6 40 19
3............................................................... 6 37 18
4............................................................... 6 34 18
5............................................................... 6 32 17
6............................................................... 6 30 17
7............................................................... 6 28 17
8............................................................... 6 25 16
9............................................................... 6 23 16
10.............................................................. 6 21 16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSHA believes that a substantial percentage of accidents involving
surface mobile equipment could be reduced if operators comply with the
proposed rule, and it projects that the number of fatalities and
injuries would be reduced by 80 percent as a result. MSHA believes it
is likely that the severity of injuries would be reduced, creating an
additional benefit, which is not quantified in this analysis. MSHA
believes that as mine operators begin the process of developing their
safety program, some benefits would be realized in the first year.
Because mine operators would focus on safety during the development of
their programs, injury rates would likely start falling even before the
programs were complete. In the first year, MSHA therefore assumes
injuries and fatalities would drop 10 percent (equivalent also to 10
percent of the full-year potential reduction) due to these improvements
taking place as safety programs are finalized. Starting from the second
year, MSHA expects that there would be considerably fewer accidents
involving surface mobile equipment, leading to a substantial drop in
the number of fatalities and nonfatal injuries. MSHA solicits comments
regarding the Agency's proposed regulatory effectiveness. Please
provide the rationale and any supporting documentation in your comment.
Table 5 shows the projected reduction in fatalities and nonfatal
injuries related to surface mobile equipment for each of 10 years after
the proposal takes effect. (A break-even analysis is discussed later,
in the benefit monetization section.) Even though fatalities and
injuries are always whole numbers, the projection of reduced fatalities
and injuries includes decimal values to allow more accurate estimates
of benefit monetization later. Supporting material
[[Page 50504]]
and data that provide additional details on MSHA's forecast including
sensitivity analysis results are included in the proposed rule docket
at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=MSHA-2018-0016">https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=MSHA-2018-0016</a> and are posted
on MSHA's website at <a href="http://www.msha.gov">www.msha.gov</a>.
Table 5--Projected Reductions in Fatalities and Injuries Involving Surface Mobile Equipment at All Covered Mines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonfatal injuries
Year Fatalities -------------------------------
NFDL NDL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 *............................................................. 0.48 3.52 1.52
2............................................................... 4.80 32.00 15.20
3............................................................... 4.80 29.60 14.40
4............................................................... 4.80 27.20 14.40
5............................................................... 4.80 25.60 13.60
6............................................................... 4.80 24.00 13.60
7............................................................... 4.80 22.40 13.60
8............................................................... 4.80 20.00 12.80
9............................................................... 4.80 18.40 12.80
10.............................................................. 4.80 16.80 12.80
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* MSHA Assumes that due to timing of implementation, the startup will result in only 10% of likely reduction of
the overall as the operators begin implementing their programs.
Benefit Monetization
To estimate the monetary value of the reductions in fatalities and
nonfatal injuries, MSHA used an analysis that relies on the theory of
compensating wage differentials (i.e., the wage premiums paid to
workers to accept the risk associated with various jobs) in the labor
market. This theory grows out of the widely observed correlation
between higher job risk and higher wages, which suggests that employees
demand monetary compensation in return for incurring greater risk. The
measure of risk reduction as applied to fatalities is known as the
Value of a Statistical Life (VSL). Despite its name, VSL is not the
valuation of life, but the valuation of reductions in risks. Following
OMB Circular A-4 and adjusting for real income changes, MSHA has used a
VSL value of $13.6 million for the 2018 base year and $13.9 million for
the first year of rule implementation.\3\ By the tenth year, the VSL
value reaches $16.5 million.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In selecting this VSL, MSHA has taken into account recent
VSL research and OMB Circular A-4 guidance, which underscore the
need to reflect industry-specific risk profiles in calculating VSLs.
For a detailed discussion, see the Preliminary Regulatory Impact
Analysis.
\4\ The historical VSL value is adjusted for inflation. Future
years are adjusted using projected increase in national real income.
These adjustments are consistent with the practice of other large
federal agencies. See the Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis for
the formula and documentation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For NFDL and NDL injuries, MSHA used percentages of VSL. In the
past, to estimate the cost of nonfatal lost-time injuries, MSHA used a
value equivalent to 0.7 percent of VSL. The figure is taken from a 2003
meta-analysis by Viscusi & Aldy and represents the study's estimate of
injury dollar value divided by the VSL. For this analysis, MSHA
continues its use of 0.7 percent of VSL for NFDL injuries.
For the NDL injuries, as discussed in the PRIA, MSHA considered
values from two sources. The National Safety Council (NSC) and the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) have
analyzed injury costs and have continued to update their findings.
NIOSH, which is part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
focuses on researching and developing new knowledge related to worker
safety and health and to transfer that knowledge into practice. The
National Safety Council is recognized among safety professionals as a
leading nonprofit safety advocate. The organization focuses on
eliminating the leading causes of preventable injuries and deaths. The
NIOSH data offers many values for individual industry groups, together
with numerous percentile groupings, means, and medians, but no single
overall value. By contrast, NSC provides a consolidated estimate of the
cost of each type of injury--one cost estimate for non-fatal injuries
with days lost (NFDL) that includes wage losses, medical expenses,
administrative expenses, and employer costs, and a second cost estimate
for injuries resulting no days of work lost (NDL) that takes into
account medical expenses, administrative expenses and employer costs.
(Note that neither estimate includes costs of property damage except to
motor vehicles). MSHA believes that the average calculated by the NSC
is a reasonable estimate to use for NDL injuries, because it is simpler
and more similar to estimates used in past MSHA analysis. Adjusting the
2016 NSC value of $39,000 (2016 dollars) for inflation using the
Medical Consumer Price Index (CPI), this figure yields a 2018 value of
$40,000. By taking the ratio of $40,000 to a 2018 VSL of $13.6 million,
MSHA calculates a percent-of-VSL value of 0.3 percent (rounded value)
for NDLs. For more detailed information, including alternate scenarios,
see the monetization discussion in the full PRIA. Table 6 lists the
resulting annual values for VSL and nonfatal injuries.
Table 6--Annual Values for VSL and Injuries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VSL ($ NFDL ($ NDL ($
Year millions) millions) millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................................... $13.90 $0.10 $0.04
2............................................................... 14.16 0.11 0.04
3............................................................... 14.44 0.11 0.04
4............................................................... 14.71 0.11 0.04
[[Page 50505]]
5............................................................... 15.00 0.11 0.04
6............................................................... 15.28 0.11 0.04
7............................................................... 15.58 0.12 0.04
8............................................................... 15.88 0.12 0.04
9............................................................... 16.18 0.12 0.04
10.............................................................. 16.50 0.12 0.05
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7 below displays the monetized benefits from the reductions
in fatalities and nonfatal injuries attributable to the proposal. These
figures are calculated by multiplying the numbers of prevented
fatalities and nonfatal injuries in Table 5 by the VSL estimates of
fatal and nonfatal injuries shown in Table 6.
Table 7--Monetized Benefit Estimates--Undiscounted
[Values in Table 5 x Values in Table 6]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prevented Prevented
Prevented nonfatal nonfatal Annual total *
Year fatalities ($ injuries NFDL injuries NDL ($ millions)
millions) ($ millions) ($ millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................... 6.7 0.4 0.1 7.1
2............................................... 68.2 3.5 0.6 72.3
3............................................... 69.1 3.3 0.6 73.0
4............................................... 70.6 3.0 0.6 74.1
5............................................... 72.0 2.8 0.5 75.4
6............................................... 73.4 2.6 0.5 76.6
7............................................... 74.9 2.7 0.5 78.1
8............................................... 76.3 2.4 0.5 79.2
9............................................... 77.8 2.2 0.5 80.5
10.............................................. 79.2 2.0 0.6 81.9
---------------------------------------------------------------
10-Year Total *............................. 668.2 24.9 5.0 698.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Totals are based on the detailed data without rounding of the individual table cells.
C. Compliance Costs
As explained above, this proposed rule would require certain mine
operators to develop a written safety program in which they would
systematically evaluate risks to reduce accidents, injuries, and
fatalities. The quantified costs associated with this proposal would be
two types--one related to the development of the written safety
program, and the other related to measures taken to enhance safety and
minimize risks.
Safety Program Development Cost
MSHA recognizes that mine operations are diverse, with varying
mining methods, mining conditions and operations, types of mobile
equipment, and mined commodities. Under this proposal, mine operators
would develop programs that are unique to their operations and/or build
on existing programs.
Program development costs are estimated based on categories of
actions to be included in the written program. To develop the safety
program, a mine operator would need to implement various procedures and
processes that identify hazards and manage risks. However, many
operators already have a number of procedures and processes in place
that would meet the requirements of this proposal. Those operators
would only have to identify and describe these procedures and
processes. Therefore, when MSHA estimates the average time for each
type of action it would take a mine operator to develop a written
safety program, it is averaging across these variations in the new
compliance actions that would be required.
The hourly-wage data used in MSHA's analysis assumes an average
rate for all mining and uses BLS's 2018 Occupational Employment Survey
(OES) mean wage rates adjusted for benefits and wage inflation since
completion of the survey. MSHA has also added an overhead cost rate of
1 percent to the wage rates. Labor costs for most employees are
estimated using $65.10 per hour for a supervisor; the only exception is
the item identified as clerical assistance, for which the estimated
cost is $31.46 per hour. Costs are estimated based on a projection that
5,027 mine operators would need to develop written programs. Table 8
summarizes these costs associated with a written safety program.
Table 8--Safety Program Development Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mine task Total hours Out-year
Major Safety Program Elements * hours (annual) (task hours x One-time ($ annual ($
5,027 mines) millions) millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Identifying hazards and manage risks............ 15 75,405 $4.9 $0.0
Evaluating technologies that enhance safety..... 60 301,620 19.5 0.0
Summarizing findings and developing written 20 100,540 6.5 0.0
program........................................
Clerical assistance to finalize program 30 150,810 4.7 0.0
(clerical rate $31.03).........................
[[Page 50506]]
Reevaluating workplace activities due to changes 20 100,540 0.0 6.5
in technology, conditions, processes,
materials, or equipment; conducting on-site
examinations; identifying hazards, trends, root
causes, and taking corrective actions..........
Annual review and update of the safety program.. 5 25,135 0.0 1.6
Total including overhead of 1%.............. .............. .............. 35.7 8.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety-Enhancement Cost
Under the proposed rule, MSHA would require mine operators to
evaluate technologies that enhance safety in the operation of surface
mobile equipment. As a result, mine operators would incur costs in
implementing safety-enhancing processes and controls.
Because it is difficult to determine the type of controls mine
operators would use to eliminate or mitigate a hazard, MSHA's analysis
approximates the safety-enhancement costs by estimating the number of
pieces of surface mobile equipment covered by this proposal and
multiplying by the associated cost for each one.
Based on MSHA experience and data, the agency has estimated the
number of pieces of equipment by several mine sizes and by mining
process (using the MSIS data for subunits) and cost per piece of
equipment for startup as well as outyear maintenance and updates. MSHA
estimates that there are approximately 60,000 pieces of mobile
equipment used at surface mines and surface areas of underground mines;
of this total, 41,994 are used at mines with six or more miners.
The safety-enhancing expenditures would vary widely across mine
operations. Some operators would incur lower costs, as they would use
less advanced controls such as signs and signals, while other operators
would invest in higher-priced controls such as interlocked seatbelts or
collision warning systems. Given this variation, MSHA assumes an
average cost of $500 per piece of surface mobile equipment in the first
year, reflecting the cost of both new technology purchases and existing
technology repairs and modifications. From the second year on, the
analysis assumes an average cost of $100 per piece of surface mobile
equipment, reflecting mostly costs of modification of existing
technologies. The analysis assumes little incremental cost for repairs
in the second year and beyond, because the repairs are already required
by other MSHA standards.
Using these estimates of the average safety-enhancement costs and
the number of pieces of equipment used by the covered mines that would
be subject to this proposal, MSHA estimates that mine operators would
incur safety-enhancement costs of approximately $21.0 million in the
first year and $4.2 million annually after that. MSHA invites
commenters to submit estimates of the types and costs of safety
enhancements that would be needed at mining operations under this
proposal.
MSHA estimates that there would be no incremental training costs,
because this proposed rule requires no new or additional training.
Training costs are already accounted for in training required by
existing standards in 30 CFR parts 46, 48, and 77, which address mine
hazard awareness and safety measures. MSHA invites commenters' views
and estimates on training costs.
Table 9 shows the total compliance costs, which are the sum of the
written program development costs and safety-enhancement and training
costs. Based on the estimates above, the total compliance costs in the
first year would be $56.6 million and $12.3 million annually in the
out-years starting from the second year of implementation. MSHA invites
commenters to submit estimates of the types and costs of enhancements
at their operations.
Table 9--Compliance Cost Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Millions of dollars
(undiscounted)
Cost item -------------------------------
Annual out-
Startup costs year costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety program development (inclusive of $35.7 $8.1
overhead costs)........................
Safety enhancement...................... 21.0 4.2
-------------------------------
Total Costs......................... 56.7 12.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Net Benefits
MSHA's 10-year cost and benefit estimates are shown in Table 10.
Under MSHA's proposed rule, mine operators would be required to meet
the requirements of the proposed rule 6 months after the effective date
of the final rule. MSHA believes that this 6-month period would provide
mine operators time to develop and communicate the safety program to
employees, evaluate mine operations for hazards, and eliminate or
control identified hazards (e.g., engineering controls, work practices,
and equipment maintenance). MSHA assumes that by reducing the surface
mobile machine fatalities and injuries by 80 percent, full benefits of
the proposed rule would be achieved by the second year, with benefits
equal to 10 percent of that amount in the first year.
[[Page 50507]]
Table 10--Summary of Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits *
[$ millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Undiscounted Discounted
---------------------------------------------------------------
Year Benefits Net benefits Net benefits
Costs Net benefits (3 percent) (7 percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... $7.1 $56.7 -$49.6 -$48.2 -$46.4
2............................... 72.3 12.3 60.0 56.6 52.4
3............................... 73.0 12.3 60.7 55.5 49.5
4............................... 74.1 12.3 61.8 54.9 47.1
5............................... 75.4 12.3 63.1 54.4 45.0
6............................... 76.6 12.3 64.3 53.9 42.8
7............................... 78.1 12.3 65.8 53.5 41.0
8............................... 79.2 12.3 66.9 52.8 38.9
9............................... 80.5 12.3 68.2 52.3 37.1
10.............................. 81.9 12.3 69.6 51.8 35.4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 698.2 167.4 530.8 437.5 343.0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized.............. 69.8 16.7 53.1 49.8 45.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Values in millions. Full precision of numbers calculated and summed, but independent rounding for display
purposes reflects subtotals but not the underlying calculations.
Break-Even Point Analysis
OMB Circular A-4 recommends use of a break-even or threshold
analysis when there are qualitative benefits or issues of uncertainty
related to the cost and benefit estimates. As discussed above, MSHA's
estimates of the benefits of the rule are based on the projected
reduction in the number of fatalities and injuries. The success of the
proposed rule in reducing fatal and nonfatal injuries can be considered
in terms of the resulting monetized benefit. A break-even point is when
net benefits (monetized benefits minus costs) equal zero. According to
the break-even calculations for this proposal, even if the fatalities
and injuries are not reduced as forecasted, the reduction of fatal and
nonfatal injuries would have a positive net benefit as long as those
injuries are reduced by more than 27.1 percent; at 27.1 percent, the
net benefits at a 7 percent discount rate would equal zero.
E. Request for Comments
Please provide data or information that would be useful to MSHA as
the Agency evaluates the costs and benefits of this proposal. MSHA
recognizes that mine operations are diverse with varying mining
methods, mining conditions and operations, types of mobile equipment,
mined commodities, and mine sizes. MSHA seeks data and information that
would allow the Agency to develop estimates that might better reflect
these differing conditions and further evaluate the economic
feasibility of this proposal. MSHA requests comments on innovative
technologies and/or new and developing technologies that could enhance
the benefits of the proposal.
IV. Feasibility
A. Technological Feasibility
MSHA concludes that the proposal would be technologically feasible
because it would require mine operators to develop and implement
written safety programs based on an assessment of risk in their mines
and use existing technology or methods to enhance safety. Therefore,
there are no technological issues raised by the proposal.
B. Economic Feasibility
MSHA has traditionally used a revenue screening test--i.e., whether
the yearly impacts of a regulation are less than one percent of
revenues--to establish presumptively that the regulation is
economically feasible for the mining community. MSHA projects that the
proposal would have an annualized cost of $17 million (at a 7 percent
discount rate over 10 years), while the mining industry has estimated
annual revenues of $109.4 billion. The cost of the proposal would be
much less than 1 percent of revenues. Therefore, MSHA concludes that
the proposed rule would be economically feasible for the mining
industry.
V. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA) and Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) and Executive Order 13272: Proper
Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking
MSHA has reviewed the proposed rule to assess and take appropriate
account of its potential impact on small businesses, small governmental
jurisdictions, and small organizations. Pursuant to the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), MSHA analyzed the impact
of the proposed rule on small entities. Based on that analysis, MSHA
believes that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Agency,
therefore, is not required to develop an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis. The factual basis for this proposed certification is
presented below.
A. Definition of a Small Mine
Under the RFA, in analyzing the impact of a rule on small entities,
MSHA must use the Small Business Administration (SBA)'s definition for
a small entity, or after consultation with the SBA Office of Advocacy,
establish an alternative definition for the mining industry by
publishing that definition in the Federal Register for notice and
comment.
The SBA uses North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
codes, generally at the 6-digit NAICS level, to set thresholds for
small business sizes for each industry. See Table 11 for SBA thresholds
for each relevant NAICS code. The SBA size standard tables and
methodology are available at <a href="https://www.sba.gov/contracting/getting-started-contractor/make-sure-you-meet-sba-size-standards/summary-size-standards-industry-sector">https://www.sba.gov/contracting/getting-started-contractor/make-sure-you-meet-sba-size-standards/summary-size-standards-industry-sector</a>.
B. Factual Basis for Certification
The SBA guidance recommends, as a first step, a threshold analysis.
MSHA
[[Page 50508]]
evaluates the impacts on small entities by comparing the estimated
compliance costs of a rule for small entities in the sector affected by
the rule to the estimated revenues for the affected sector. As the
threshold analysis is developed, MSHA considers the data availability
as well as the degree of representativeness if the data is
disaggregated. When estimated compliance costs are less than 1 percent
of the estimated industry revenues, it is generally appropriate to
conclude that there is no significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. MSHA examines data for the NAICS codes that
have much higher impact ratios (cost/revenue) than others to ensure
that the first level screening is representative. When estimated ratios
may not be representative or when compliance costs exceed one percent
of revenues, MSHA investigates whether further analysis is required.
For this analysis, MSHA evaluated a number of data sources related
to the number of firms, employment, and revenue. MSHA concluded that
the most useful data for firms and employment was the MNM mine data
from MSIS, which is publicly available at <a href="https://www.msha.gov/data-reports/data-sources-calculators">https://www.msha.gov/data-reports/data-sources-calculators</a>. Using the SBA criteria (see Table 11)
and MSIS total average annual mine employment data as provided by mine
operators, MSHA identified that 10,278 out of 12,281 mines and
facilities are considered ``small'' and have usable data. MSHA
identified 533 other small mines that were not included in this
analysis, because some had incomplete data, another had few production
hours for the year (intermittent mines), and others stopped production
in 2018.) Of those small mines and facilities, slightly more than one-
third, 35 percent (3,557/10,278 small), would be required to comply
with the provisions of the proposal because they employ six or more
miners. Costs from the Compliance Costs section above were distributed
using the SBA small and large sizes using the same methodology
discussed in that section. The 65 percent of small mine operators that
do not have to comply will have no cost.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Those 533 mines excluded from this analysis are mines with 1
to 5 miners, which are not subject to the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSHA estimates mine revenue as it did in the past. Since MNM mines
do not report production, MSHA used U.S. Geological Commodity reports
(USGS, 2019) to obtain national MNM revenue numbers for 2018. MSHA
allocated the NAICS code revenue for MNM mines on a dollar per hour
basis. MSHA uses the mine operator-reported coal production and Energy
Information Administration price per ton for anthracite, lignite, and
bituminous coal for small mines.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ <a href="https://www.eia.gov/coal/annual/archive/0584_2018.pdf">https://www.eia.gov/coal/annual/archive/0584_2018.pdf</a>, p.
XVII
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSHA considered the issue of disaggregation of summary data and
displaying representative data for mines with only five or fewer
miners. The revenue per hour for MNM mines and per ton for coal is
representative for the total as most mines meet the SBA's small
criteria. However, MSHA believes it is unlikely to be representative
for the smallest mines. MSHA requests comments and data that would
assist MSHA in estimating representative revenues for the categories of
six or more, and five or fewer, miners.
Table 11 shows the estimated revenues, costs, SBA size standards
(Feb. 2019), and the summary level screening test results for the total
small mine revenue for each 6-digit NAICS code. The summary level data
is consistent with evaluating the impact on a mine-by-mine basis
without providing detail on all mines. The data allows each operator to
use the Table 11 data to compare the revenue per mine and cost per mine
to their operating data. However, the revenue for incomplete data was
less than 1 percent of total revenues. It is therefore small enough not
to affect MSHA's decision to propose to certify that there would be no
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Table 11--Summary of Small Business Screening Data
[Revenues and costs in $ millions]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small standard Estimated
NAICS Code NAICS description (max. no. of Number of revenues all One percent of Costs to all Cost exceeds one
employees) small mines small mines revenues small mines percent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
212111........................ Bituminous Coal and 1,250 611 $9,325 $93.25 $4.48 No.
Lignite Surface
Mining.
212112........................ Bituminous Coal 1,500 148 4,386 43.86 0.33 No.
Underground Mining.
212113........................ Anthracite Mining..... 250 117 189 1.89 0.38 No.
212210........................ Iron Ore Mining....... 750 21 999 9.99 0.16 No.
212221........................ Gold Ore Mining....... 1,500 122 2,332 23.32 0.63 No.
212222........................ Silver Ore Mining..... 250 5 99 0.99 0.01 No.
212230........................ Copper, Nickel, Lead, 750 27 2,780 27.80 0.31 No.
and Zinc Mining.
212291........................ Uranium-Radium- 250 4 0 0.00 0.01 Yes.
Vanadium Ore Mining.
212299........................ All Other Metal Ore 750 17 419 4.19 0.13 No.
Mining.
212311........................ Dimension Stone Mining 500 772 438 4.38 3.15 No.
and Quarrying.
212312........................ Crushed and Broken 750 1,318 6,459 64.59 7.64 No.
Limestone Mining and
Quarrying.
212313........................ Crushed and Broken 750 138 1,135 11.35 0.97 No.
Granite Mining and
Quarrying.
212319........................ Other Crushed and 500 874 1,732 17.32 3.52 No.
Broken Stone Mining
and Quarrying.
212321........................ Construction Sand and 500 5,326 6,796 67.96 12.77 No.
Gravel Mining.
212322........................ Industrial Sand Mining 500 249 4,231 42.31 1.34 No.
212324........................ Kaolin and Ball Clay 750 7 620 6.20 0.05 No.
Mining.
212325........................ Clay and Ceramic and 500 198 766 7.66 0.78 No.
Refractory Minerals
Mining.
212391........................ Potash, Soda, and 750 9 909 9.09 0.05 No.
Borate Mineral Mining.
212392........................ Phosphate Rock Mining. 1,000 8 969 9.69 0.16 No.
212393........................ Other Chemical and 500 44 1,541 15.41 0.28 No.
Fertilizer Mineral
Mining.
212399........................ All Other Nonmetallic 500 181 957 9.57 0.89 No.
Mineral Mining.
311942........................ Spice and Extract 500 3 920 9.20 0.02 No.
Manufacturing.
327310........................ Cement Manufacturing.. 1,000 40 4,501 45.01 0.43 No.
[[Page 50509]]
327410........................ Lime Manufacturing.... 750 31 1,350 13.50 0.24 No.
331313........................ Alumina Refining and 1,000 6 3 0.03 0.04 Yes.
Primary Aluminum
Production.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total............... ...................... .............. 10,278 53,856 538.56 38.77 No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Total number of small mines includes two mines that were not reported as abandoned but lacked hours and sufficient information to assign revenues.
Without miner hours, costs and revenues related to the NAICS codes above are most likely zero.
As Table 11 shows, the total estimated cost to small mines, $38.77
million, is far less than 1 percent of the total revenues of those
mines, which comes to $538.56 million. Two NAICS codes, 331313 Alumina
Refining and Primary Aluminum Production and 212291 Uranium Radium
Vanadium Ore Mining, require further analysis, because estimated costs
for those codes exceed MSHA's 1-percent threshold for additional
analysis. The Census Bureau's Statistics of U.S. Businesses and 2017
Economic Census data provides helpful information for additional
analysis of NAICS code 331313. The Census Bureau reports that all data
for the 212291 NAICS has been withheld due to the very limited number
of mines. The six mines and plants regulated by MSHA with NAICS code
331313 are only a portion of the larger group of all firms with NAICS
code 331313. The preliminary data from the Economic Census as shown in
the Bureau's data does not provide enough detail to separate small
firms between 500 and 1,000 employees from their total for 500 and more
employees or to isolate mines from all firms with NAICS code 331313.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See <a href="https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/susb/tables/2017/us_6digitnaics_2017.xlsx">https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/susb/tables/2017/us_6digitnaics_2017.xlsx</a> for the available data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For NAICS code 331313, MSHA's estimate for the total costs for the
small firms that it regulates within the code is $38,500. The Economic
Census reports that the smallest firms for this NAICS have preliminary
receipts of $9.3 million. The impact for the smallest firms would be
only 0.4 percent ($38,500/$9,300,000). The overall percentage impact to
small firms goes down as the revenues increase for the rest of the
firms up to the SBA threshold of 1,000 employees. Although the Economic
Census numbers are for 2017, information available online provided by a
private firm <a href="http://SICCODE.com">SICCODE.com</a> (<a href="https://siccode.com/naics-code/331313/alumina-refining-primary-aluminum-production">https://siccode.com/naics-code/331313/alumina-refining-primary-aluminum-production</a>), suggests that the number
of firms (26) and total revenues ($3 billion) are down slightly for
2018 but not enough to alter MSHA's conclusion that there is no
significant impact for small firms with this NAICS code.
For Uranium and Vanadium, the mines were rarely in production in
2018. Several web sources suggest that as uranium approaches or
maintains zero production, the Vanadium mines have the potential for
growth for use in steel and battery production; thus, non-producing
mines are maintained for this possibility. Because no recent data are
available regarding the remaining establishments, their total
employment, their revenues or costs, it is not possible to compute the
impact beyond the total cost for the NAICS code 212291 which is
slightly more than $14,000. Considering that the firms owning the
limited number of mines are maintaining the mines for future
possibilities, it is unlikely that this low cost would impact their
decision whether to close. MSHA invites comments and data that might
improve this conclusion and analysis.
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
A. Summary
This proposal would create new information collection burdens for
the mining community. The new burden applies only to mine operators
with six or more miners. As stated in the proposal, mine operators
would have wide latitude to develop and implement a written safety
program. Mine operators could also consult or use examples of model
written safety programs available on MSHA's website. MSHA recognizes
that this proposal could transfer burden from (or add burden to)
existing information collections such as those related to training or
equipment maintenance. However, MSHA is requesting a new OMB Control
Number until the Agency determines how the burden under this proposal
would affect MSHA's existing information collections. Using the data
from the E.O. 12866 analysis, MSHA estimates that 5,027 respondents
(mine operators employing six or more miners) would incur an average
annual collection burden of 5,027 responses, 100,540 hours, with an
annual burden cost estimate of $4.8 million. The MSHA enforcement staff
would not review all written programs, but any program review would be
part of routine mine inspections and therefore there is no new federal
cost. Table 12 shows the anticipated first three years of collection
burden.
Table 12--Recordkeeping Burden of Proposed Rule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hourly rate Hour burden
Year Item description Hours per task Respondents Burden hours (with cost ($
(mines) Benefits) Millions)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................... Development of a written safety 20 5,027 100,540 $65.10 $6.5
program.
1...................................... Clerical assistance to finalize 30 5,027 150,810 31.46 4.7
written program.
2...................................... Annual review, plan revision, 5 5,027 25,135 65.10 1.6
and update due to changes in
workplace activities.
[[Page 50510]]
3...................................... Annual review, plan revision, 5 5,027 25,135 65.10 1.6
and update due to changes in
workplace activities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3-Year Total....................................................... 60 5,027 301,620 NA 14.4
Annual Average................................................. 20 5,027 100,540 NA 4.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Procedural Details
The information collection package for this proposal has been
submitted to OMB for review under 44 U.S.C. 3504, paragraph (c) of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as amended. Comments on the
information collection requirements should be sent to both OMB and
MSHA. Addresses for both offices can be found in the ADDRESSES section
of this preamble.
MSHA is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information
collection related to written safety programs. MSHA is particularly
interested in comments that address the following:
<bullet> Evaluate whether the collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information has practical utility;
<bullet> Evaluate the accuracy of MSHA's estimate of the burden of
the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
<bullet> Suggest methods to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and
<bullet> Minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses.
VII. Regulatory Alternative
MSHA considered requiring all mines, regardless of size, to develop
and implement a written safety program for surface mobile equipment
used at surface mines and surface areas of underground mines. Between
2013 and 2018, mines with five or fewer miners experienced 10
fatalities related to surface mobile equipment, whereas mines with six
or more miners experienced 109 related fatalities during the same time
period.
If those mines with five or fewer miners were required to develop
and implement a written safety program, they would incur substantial
costs. MSHA estimates that there are 7,254 mines with five or fewer
miners. The preliminary projected costs for this group of mines would
add up to approximately undiscounted cost of $170 million over a ten-
year period. These mines would incur a start up cost of $ 64.6 million
in the first year and an annual cost of $11.7 over the subsequent 9
years.
Based on the Agency's experience, MSHA concluded that a mine
operator with five or fewer miners would generally have a limited
inventory of surface mobile equipment. These operators would also have
less complex mining operations, with fewer mobile equipment hazards
that would necessitate a written safety program. Also, at these small
mines, safety can be communicated more effectively through face to face
communication rather than in writing. Taken together, MSHA has
determined that mine operators employing five or fewer miners would not
be required to have a written safety program, although the Agency would
assist these mine operators with promoting a safety culture in a
variety of ways. Fuller discussions can be found in the Preliminary
Regulatory Impact Analysis in the proposed rule docket at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=MSHA-2018-0016">https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=MSHA-2018-0016</a> and are posted on MSHA's
website at <a href="https://www.msha.gov">https://www.msha.gov</a>. MSHA also solicits comments on the
Agency's determination.
VIII. Other Regulatory Considerations
A. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Act) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et
seq.) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their
discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses
actions that may result in the expenditure by state, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million (adjusted annually for inflation) or more in any one year. This
proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure. Accordingly, the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 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
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act of 1999 (5 U.S.C. 601 note) requires agencies to assess the impact
of Agency action on family well-being. MSHA has determined that the
proposal would not have an effect on family stability or safety,
marital commitment, parental rights and authority, or income or poverty
of families and children. Accordingly, MSHA certifies that this
proposed rule would not impact family well-being.
C. Executive Order 12630: Government Actions and Interference With
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights
Section 5 of E.O. 12630 requires federal agencies to ``identify the
takings implications of final regulatory actions. . . .'' MSHA has
determined that the proposal would not include a regulatory or policy
action with takings implications. Accordingly, E.O. 12630 requires no
further Agency action or analysis.
D. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
Section 3 of E.O. 12988 contains requirements for federal agencies
promulgating new regulations or reviewing existing regulations to
minimize litigation by eliminating drafting errors and ambiguity,
providing a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a
general standard, promoting simplification, and reducing burden. MSHA
has reviewed the proposal and has determined that it would meet the
applicable standards provided in E.O. 12988 to minimize litigation and
undue burden on the federal court system.
[[Page 50511]]
E. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
MSHA has determined that the proposal would not have an adverse
impact on children. Accordingly, E.O. 13045 requires no further Agency
action or analysis.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
MSHA has determined that the proposal 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, E.O. 13132 requires no
further Agency action or analysis.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
MSHA has determined that the proposal 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, E.O. 13175 requires no further Agency action or analysis.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
E.O. 13211 requires agencies to publish a statement of energy
effects when a rule has a significant energy action that adversely
affects energy supply, distribution, or use. MSHA reviewed the proposal
for its energy effects on the production of coal and uranium mining.
The proposal would result in annualized costs of approximately $16.7
million to covered surface mines and surface areas of underground
mines. The Energy Information Administration's annual uranium report
for 2018 shows, ``Owners and operators of U.S. civilian nuclear power
reactors (civilian owner/operators, or COOs) purchased a total of 43
million pounds U3O8e (equivalent) of deliveries from U.S. suppliers and
foreign suppliers during 2017, at a weighted-average price of $38.80
per pound,'' which is approximately $1.7 billion. Given that domestic
nuclear plants represent only 19.3 percent of the U.S. electrical
production and using average annual costs of the entire proposal, the
impact to the domestic energy production could not reach 1 percent.
Coal mining industry has an annual revenue of $27.2 billion (See Table
2). Under this proposal, annual costs impacting the total coal
production of 756 million tons would not affect national energy
production costs by more than 1 percent or reduce annual coal
production by 5 million tons. MSHA has concluded that it is not a
significant energy action because it is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. Accordingly, under this analysis, no further Agency action or
analysis is required.
IX. References
American Society of Safety Professionals (ASSP), Occupational
Health and Safety Management Systems, ANSI/ASSP Z10-2012, (R2017).
International Standards Organization (ISO), Occupational Health
and Safety Management Systems--Requirements With Guidance for Use
(ISO 45001:2018). Occupational Health and Safety Assessment Series
(OHSAS) 18001.
List of Subjects
30 CFR Parts 56 and 57
Metal and nonmetal mining, Mine safety and health, Surface mining,
Mobile equipment safety program, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, and Underground mining.
30 CFR Part 77
Coal mining, Mine safety and health, Surface mining, Mobile
equipment safety program, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and
Underground mining.
Patricia W. Silvey,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, and under the authority of
the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, as amended by the Mine
Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006, MSHA is proposing
to amend chapter I of title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations as
follows:
PART 56--SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS--SURFACE METAL AND NONMETAL
MINES
0
1. The authority citation for part 56 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811.
0
2. Add subpart T to Part 56 to read as follows:
Subpart T--Safety Program For Surface Mobile Equipment
Sec.
56.23000 Purpose and scope.
56.23001 Definitions.
56.23002 Written safety program.
56.23003 Requirements for written safety program.
56.23004 Record and inspection.
Sec. 56.23000 Purpose and scope.
This subpart requires mine operators employing six or more miners
to develop, implement, and update a written safety program for surface
mobile equipment to reduce the number and rates of accidents, injuries,
and fatalities. This subpart applies to surface mobile equipment at
surface metal and nonmetal mines. The purpose of this safety program is
to promote and support a positive safety culture and improve miners'
safety at the mine.
Sec. 56.23001 Definitions.
The following definitions apply in this subpart--
Responsible person means a person with authority and responsibility
to evaluate and update a written safety program for surface mobile
equipment.
Surface mobile equipment means wheeled, skid-mounted, track-
mounted, or rail-mounted equipment capable of moving or being moved,
and any powered equipment that transports people, equipment, or
materials, excluding belt conveyors, at surface metal and nonmetal
mines.
Sec. 56.23002 Written safety program.
(a) Each operator subject to this subpart shall develop and
implement a written safety program for surface mobile equipment that
contains the elements in this subpart, no later than [DATE 6 months
after the effective date of the final rule].
(b) Each operator subject to this subpart shall designate a
responsible person to evaluate and update the written safety program,
no later than [DATE 6 months after the effective date of the final
rule].
Sec. 56.23003 Requirements for written safety program.
(a) The mine operator shall develop and implement a written safety
program that includes actions the operator would take to:
(1) Identify and analyze hazards and reduce the resulting risks
related to the movement and the operation of surface mobile equipment;
(2) develop and maintain procedures and schedules for routine
maintenance and non-routine repairs for surface mobile equipment;
(3) identify currently available and newly emerging feasible
technologies that can enhance safety at the mine and evaluate whether
to adopt them; and
[[Page 50512]]
(4) train miners and other persons at the mine necessary to perform
work to identify and address or avoid hazards related to surface mobile
equipment.
(b) The responsible person shall evaluate and update the written
safety program annually or as mining conditions or practices change, as
accidents or injuries occur, or as surface mobile equipment changes or
modifications are made.
Sec. 56.23004 Record and inspection.
The mine operator shall make the written safety program available
for inspection by authorized representatives of the Secretary, miners,
and representatives of miners, and provide a copy, upon request.
PART 57--SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS--UNDERGROUND METAL AND
NONMETAL MINES
0
3. The authority citation for Part 57 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811.
0
4. Add subpart U to part 57 to read as follows:
Subpart U--Safety Program for Surface Mobile Equipment
Sec.
57.23000 Purpose and scope.
57.23001 Definitions.
57.23002 Written safety program.
57.23003 Requirements for written safety program.
57.23004 Record and inspection.
Sec. 57.23000 Purpose and scope.
This subpart requires mine operators employing six or more miners
to develop, implement, and update a written safety program for surface
mobile equipment to reduce the number and rates of accidents, injuries,
and fatalities. This subpart applies to surface mobile equipment at
surface areas of underground metal and nonmetal mines. The purpose of
this safety program is to promote and support a positive safety culture
and improve miners' safety at the mine.
Sec. 57.23001 Definitions.
The following definitions apply in this subpart--
Responsible person means a person with authority and responsibility
to evaluate and update a written safety program for surface mobile
equipment.
Surface mobile equipment means wheeled, skid-mounted, track-
mounted, or rail-mounted equipment capable of moving or being moved,
and any powered equipment that transports people, equipment, or
materials, excluding belt conveyors, at surface areas of underground
metal and nonmetal mines.
Sec. 57.23002 Written safety program.
(a) Each operator subject to this subpart shall develop and
implement a written safety program for surface mobile equipment that
contains the elements in this subpart, no later than [DATE 6 months
after the effective date of the final rule].
(b) Each operator subject to this subpart shall designate a
responsible person to evaluate and update the written safety program,
no later than [DATE 6 months after the effective date of the final
rule].
Sec. 57.23003 Requirements for written safety program.
(a) The mine operator shall develop and implement a written safety
program that includes actions the operator would take to:
(1) Identify and analyze hazards and reduce the resulting risks
related to the movement and the operation of surface mobile equipment;
(2) develop and maintain procedures and schedules for routine
maintenance and non-routine repairs for surface mobile equipment;
(3) identify currently available and newly emerging feasible
technologies that can enhance safety at the mine and evaluate whether
to adopt them; and
(4) train miners and other persons at the mine necessary to perform
work to identify and address or avoid hazards related to surface mobile
equipment.
(b) The responsible person shall evaluate and update the written
safety program annually or as mining conditions or practices change, as
accidents or injuries occur, or as surface mobile equipment changes or
modifications are made.
Sec. 57.23004 Record and inspection.
The mine operator shall make the written safety program available
for inspection by authorized representatives of the Secretary, miners,
and representatives of miners, and provide a copy, upon request.
PART 77--MANDATORY SAFETY STANDARDS, SURFACE COAL MINES AND SURFACE
WORK AREAS OF UNDERGROUND COAL MINES
0
5. The authority citation for part 77 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811.
0
6. Add subpart V to part 77 to read as follows:
Subpart V--Safety Program for Surface Mobile Equipment
Sec.
77.2100 Purpose and scope.
77.2101 Definitions.
77.2102 Written safety program.
77.2103 Requirements for written safety program.
77.2104 Record and inspection.
Sec. 77.2100 Purpose and scope.
This subpart requires mine operators employing six or more miners
to develop, implement, and update a written safety program for surface
mobile equipment to reduce the number and rates of accidents, injuries,
and fatalities. This subpart applies to surface mobile equipment at
surface coal mines and surface work areas of underground coal mines.
The purpose of this safety program is to promote and support a positive
safety culture and improve miners' safety at the mine.
Sec. 77.2101 Definitions.
The following definitions apply in this subpart--
Responsible person means a person with authority and responsibility
to evaluate and update a written safety program for surface mobile
equipment.
Surface mobile equipment means wheeled, skid-mounted, track-
mounted, or rail-mounted equipment capable of moving or being moved,
and any powered equipment that transports people, equipment, or
materials, excluding belt conveyors, at surface coal mines and surface
work areas of underground coal mines.
Sec. 77.2102 Written safety program.
(a) Each operator subject to this subpart shall develop and
implement a written safety program for surface mobile equipment that
contains the elements in this subpart, no later than [DATE 6 months
after effective date of the final rule].
(b) Each operator subject to this subpart shall designate a
responsible person to evaluate and update the written safety program,
no later than [DATE 6 months after effective date of the final rule].
Sec. 77.2103 Requirements for written safety program.
(a) The mine operator shall develop and implement a written safety
program that includes actions the operator would take to:
(1) Identify and analyze hazards and reduce the resulting risks
related to the movement and the operation of surface mobile equipment;
(2) develop and maintain procedures and schedules for routine
maintenance
[[Page 50513]]
and non-routine repairs for surface mobile equipment;
(3) identify currently available and newly emerging feasible
technologies that can enhance safety at the mine and evaluate whether
to adopt them; and
(4) train miners and other persons at the mine necessary to perform
work to identify and address or avoid hazards related to surface mobile
equipment.
(b) The responsible person shall evaluate and update the written
safety program annually or as mining conditions or practices change, as
accidents or injuries occur, or as equipment changes or modifications
are made.
Sec. 77.2104 Record and inspection.
The mine operator shall make the written safety program available
for inspection by authorized representatives of the Secretary, miners,
and representatives of miners, and provide a copy, upon request.
[FR Doc. 2021-18791 Filed 9-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4520-43-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on September 9, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.