Proposed Rule2025-11616
Improving and Eliminating Regulations; Blacksmith Shops
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
July 1, 2025
Issuing agencies
Labor DepartmentMine Safety and Health Administration
Abstract
MSHA is proposing to revise 30 CFR part 57 to remove outdated requirements regarding blacksmith shops located at surface metal and nonmetal mines. Removal of this standard would not result in a reduction of safety protection for miners at surface metal and nonmetal mines.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 124 (Tuesday, July 1, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 124 (Tuesday, July 1, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28400-28403]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-11616]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration
30 CFR Part 57
[Docket No. MSHA-2025-0076]
RIN 1219-AC07
Improving and Eliminating Regulations; Blacksmith Shops
AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), Department of
Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: MSHA is proposing to revise 30 CFR part 57 to remove outdated
requirements regarding blacksmith shops located at surface metal and
nonmetal mines. Removal of this standard would not result in a
reduction of safety protection for miners at surface metal and nonmetal
mines.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 31, 2025.
ADDRESSES: All submissions must include RIN 1219-AC07 or Docket No.
MSHA-2025-0076. You should not include personal or proprietary
information that you do not wish to disclose publicly. If you mark
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 any personal information provided.
MSHA cautions against submitting personal information.
You may submit comments and informational materials, clearly
identified by RIN 1219-AC07 or Docket No. MSHA-2025-0076, by any of the
following methods:
1. Federal E-Rulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow
the online instructions for submitting comments for MSHA-2025-0076.
2. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#aed4d4e3fde6ef83cdc1c3c3cbc0daddeecac1c280c9c1d8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f18b8bbca2b9b0dc929e9c9c949f8582b1959e9ddf969e87">[email protected]</span></a>. Include ``RIN 1219-AC07'' in the
subject line of the message.
3. Regular Mail or Hand Delivery: MSHA, Office of Standards,
Regulations, and Variances, Room C3522, 200 Constitution Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20210. Before visiting MSHA in person, call 202-693-9440
to make an appointment.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica D. Senk, Acting Director,
Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at 202-693-9440
(voice). This is not a toll-free number.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
MSHA is proposing to remove existing provisions from title 30 of
the Code of Federal Regulations (30 CFR). The existing MSHA standard in
30 CFR 57.4532 outlines requirements for when blacksmith shops are
located on the surface at underground metal and nonmetal mines.
Removing these provisions would not reduce protections afforded to
miners.
II. Discussion
In MSHA's experience, blacksmith shops are no longer located on the
[[Page 28401]]
surface at underground metal and nonmetal mines. Removing these
provisions would not reduce protections afforded to miners because the
standard is no longer applicable. For these reasons, MSHA believes that
Sec. 57.4532 is unnecessary. This action reflects MSHA's experience
and ongoing review of existing regulations to ensure they remain
necessary, effective, and aligned with current technologies and mining
practices.
MSHA seeks comment on any aspect of this proposed rule.
III. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' 58
FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires agencies, to the extent permitted by
law, to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that
some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor
regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with
obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other
things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative
regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory
approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits; (4) to the
extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying
the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must
adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the
desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing
information upon which choices can be made by the public.
E.O. 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'' 76 FR
3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), requires agencies to use the best available
techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and
costs as accurately as possible. E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of
E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory
system to promote predictability, reduce uncertainty, and use the best,
most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory
ends.
E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 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.
E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
Under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, a ``significant regulatory
action'' is a regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that
may:
(1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect in a material way he economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities
(also referred to as economically significant);
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the E.O.
Under section 6(a) of E.O. 12866, the Office of Management and
Budget's (OMB's) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)
determines whether a regulatory action is significant and whether
Agencies are required to submit the regulatory action to OIRA for
review. Removing the provisions for blacksmith shops would not impose
new compliance costs to surface metal and nonmetal mine operators or
reduce the protections afforded to miners. This proposed rule is
determined to not constitute a ``significant regulatory action''
because it does not meet any of the four ``significant regulatory
action'' criteria under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this
proposed rule was not submitted to OIRA for review under E.O. 12866.
No alternatives were considered for this proposed deregulatory
action.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996,
requires preparation of an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment,
unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The RFA defines small entities to include small businesses,
small organizations, including not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
MSHA reviewed this proposed rule under the provisions of the RFA,
which eliminates burdensome regulations. MSHA initially concludes that
the impacts of the proposed rule would not have a ``significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,'' and that
the preparation of an IRFA is not warranted. MSHA will transmit this
certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review
under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
provides for the Federal Government's collection, use, and
dissemination of information. The goals of the Paperwork Reduction Act
include minimizing paperwork and reporting burdens and ensuring the
maximum possible utility from the information that is collected under 5
CFR part 1320. The Paperwork Reduction Act requires Federal agencies to
obtain approval from OMB before requesting or requiring ``a collection
of information'' from the public.
This proposed rule imposes no new information collection or record-
keeping requirements. Accordingly, OMB clearance is not required under
the Paperwork Reduction Act.
D. Review Under Executive Order 13132
E.O. 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999), imposes
certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism
implications. The E.O. requires agencies to examine the constitutional
and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the
policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the
necessity for such actions. The E.O. also requires agencies to have an
accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and
local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
federalism implications.
MSHA has examined this proposed rule and has determined that it
would not have a substantial direct effect 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.
E. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O.
[[Page 28402]]
12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on
Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following
requirements: (1) eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write
regulations to minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard
for affected conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote
simplification and burden reduction. Regarding the review required by
section 3(a), section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that
Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the
regulation: (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2)
clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3)
provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting
simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive
effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General.
Section 3(c) of E.O. 12988 requires Executive agencies to review
regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and
section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to
meet one or more of them. MSHA has completed the required review and
determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this proposed rule
meets the relevant standards of E.O. 12988.
F. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year
(adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy.
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)). The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a ``significant
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small
governments before establishing any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect them.
MSHA examined this proposed rule according to UMRA and its
statement of policy and determined that the proposal does not contain a
Federal intergovernmental mandate, nor is it expected to require
expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by State, local,
and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. As
a result, the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.
G. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.), requires each Federal agency to consider the
environmental effects of regulatory actions and to prepare an
environmental impact statement on Agency actions that would
significantly affect the quality of the environment; unless the action
is considered categorically excluded under 29 CFR 11.10. MSHA has
reviewed the proposed rule in accordance with NEPA requirements and the
Department of Labor's NEPA procedures (29 CFR part 11). As a result of
this review, MSHA has determined that this proposed rule would not
impact air, water, or soil quality, plant or animal life, the use of
land or other aspects of the human environment. Therefore, MSHA has not
conducted an environmental assessment nor provided an environmental
impact statement.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
This proposed rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or
integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, MSHA has
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18,
1988), MSHA has determined that this proposed rule would not result in
any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to
review most disseminations of information to the public under
information quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to
general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67
FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002). MSHA has reviewed this proposed rule and has
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in the OMB
guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13175
E.O. 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments'' 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000), requires agencies to consult
with tribal officials when developing policies that may have ``tribal
implications.'' This proposed rule does not have ``tribal
implications'' because it will 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, under E.O. 13175, no further Agency action or analysis is
required.
L. Review Under Executive Order 13211
E.O. 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' 66 FR 28355 (May 22,
2001), 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 has reviewed this proposed rule for
its energy effects. For the energy analysis, this proposed rule will
not exceed the relevant criteria for adverse impact.
M. Review Under Additional Executive Orders and Presidential Memoranda
MSHA has examined this proposed rule and has determined that it is
consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O. 14154,
``Unleashing American Energy'' 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025); E.O. 14192,
``Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation'' 90 FR 9065 (Feb. 6,
2025); and the Presidential Memorandum, ``Delivering Emergency Price
Relief for American Families and Defeating the Cost-of-Living Crisis''
90 FR 8245 (Jan. 28, 2025). This proposed rule is expected to be an
E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.
[[Page 28403]]
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 57
Chemicals, Electric power, Explosives, Fire prevention, Gases,
Hazardous substances, Metal and nonmetal mining, Mine safety and
health, Noise control, Radiation protection, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Underground mining.
For the reasons set forth 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 proposes
to amend chapter I of title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations as
follows:
SUBCHAPTER K--METAL AND NONMETAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
PART 57-SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS--UNDERGROUND METAL AND NONMETAL
MINES
0
1. The authority citation for part 57 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811.
Subpart C--Fire Prevention and Control
Sec. 57.4532 [Removed and Reserved].
0
2. Remove and reserve Sec. 57.4532.
James P. McHugh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Mine Safety and Health
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2025-11616 Filed 6-30-25; 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 July 1, 2025.
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.