Proposed Rule2025-12230
Roof Control Plan Approval Criteria
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 its roof control plan regulations to eliminate the provision that allows the District Manager to require additional measures to be included in plans. The current regulation may violate statutory authority; the Appointments Clause, by vesting significant regulatory authority in District Managers; and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), by skipping notice and comment.
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 28432-28438]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-12230]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration
30 CFR Part 75
[Docket No. MSHA-2025-0072]
RIN 1219-AC18
Roof Control Plan Approval Criteria
AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), Department of
Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: MSHA is proposing to revise its roof control plan regulations
to eliminate the provision that allows the District Manager to require
additional measures to be included in plans. The current regulation may
violate statutory authority; the Appointments Clause, by vesting
significant regulatory authority in District Managers; and the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), by skipping notice and comment.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 31, 2025.
ADDRESSES: All submissions must include RIN 1219-AC18 or Docket No.
MSHA-2025-0072. 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-AC18 or Docket No. MSHA-2025-0072, 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-2025-0072. A
brief summary of this document will be available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket/MSHA-2025-0072">https://www.regulations.gov/docket/MSHA-2025-0072</a>.
2. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fc8686b1afb4bdd19f9391919992888fbc989390d29b938a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6218182f312a234f010d0f0f070c161122060d0e4c050d14">[email protected]</span></a>. Include ``RIN 1219-AC18'' 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
By statute Congress prescribed an interim standard requiring that
``[e]ach operator shall undertake to carry out on a continuing basis a
program to improve the roof control system of each coal mine . . .''
and shall adopt a ``roof control plan'' subject to bi-annual review of
the Secretary. 30 U.S.C. 862(a). Further, Congress instructed the
Secretary of Labor to ``develop, promulgate, and revise as may be
appropriate, improved mandatory health and safety standards for the
protection of life and prevention of injuries in coal or other mines.''
30 U.S.C. 811(a). The interim statutory ``roof control'' standard was
to be superseded by improved mandatory standards. 30 U.S.C. 861(a).
Pursuant to 30 U.S.C. 811(a), MSHA has adopted regulations to implement
30 U.S.C. 862(a) and these standards include a roof control plan
requirement. 30 CFR 75.220-223. Each mine operator must ``develop and
follow a roof control plan'' which is ``approved by the District
Manager.'' 30 CFR 75.220(a). No roof control plan may be implemented
before it is approved. 30 CFR 75.220(c).
MSHA regulations also set out detailed criteria for the approval of
roof control plans. 30 CFR 75.222. For example, roof bolts generally
``should be installed on centers not exceeding 5 feet lengthwise and
crosswise.'' 30 CFR 75.222(b)(1). ``When tensioned roof bolts are used
as a means of roof support, the torque or tension range should be
capable of supporting roof bolt loads of at least 50 percent of either
the yield point of the bolt or anchorage capacity of the strata,
whichever is less.'' 30 CFR 75.222(b)(2). ``Any opening that is more
than 20 feet wide should be supported by a combination of roof bolts
and conventional supports.'' 30 CFR 75.222(b)(3). ``In any opening more
than 20 feet wide[,]'' posts ``should be installed to limit each
roadway to 16 feet wide where straight and 18 feet wide where curved''
and a ``row of posts should be set for each 5 feet of space between the
roadway posts and the ribs.'' 30 CFR 75.222(b)(4). ``Openings should
not be more than 30 feet wide.'' 30 CFR 75.222(b)(5).
The regulations also include detailed requirements for installation
of roof support using mining machines with integral roof bolters,
pillar recovery, unsupported openings at intersections, Automated
Temporary Roof Supports (ATRS) systems in working sections where the
mining height is below 30 inches, and longwall mining systems. 30 CFR
75.222(c)-(g). These criteria must be ``considered on a mine-by-mine
basis in the formulation and approval of roof control plans and
revisions.'' 30 CFR 75.222(a). The Roof Control Plan has the force and
effect of ``law'' at the mine, the mine may be cited for violation of
the Plan, and mine personnel may be held personally liable, civilly and
criminally, for violations of the Plan.
Title 30 CFR 75.222, however, also gives the District Manager broad
authority to add regulatory criteria for the approval of roof control
plans which are neither described or required by the regulations or 30
U.S.C. 862(a). Specifically, the regulations currently state, without
limitation, that: ``[a]dditional measures may be required in plans by
the District Manager.'' Id.
II. Discussion
MSHA is proposing to rescind the power of District Managers to add
additional measures to roof control plans, beyond the reticulated
criteria set out in 30 CFR 75.222 and the other requirements set forth
in 30 CFR 75.220-223. MSHA has reevaluated its regulations and
tentatively concluded that the significant authority and
[[Page 28433]]
discretion granted to District Managers in 30 CFR 75.222(a), to add
``additional measures,'' not identified in the statute or improved
mandatory safety standards, is not supported by statute, violates the
Appointments Clause and the APA.
While mine operators are required by statute to prepare and submit
a roof control plan, and while MSHA has promulgated regulations setting
forth specific criteria and requirements for roof control plans,
nothing in the plain text of the underlying statute, including 30
U.S.C. 862 and 30 U.S.C. 811(a), can be read to permit the unfettered
addition of ``additional measures [as] may be required in plans by
District Managers.'' 30 CFR 75.222(a). This lack of statutory authority
is contrary to Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369
(2024) and is an adequate reason to rescind the sentence ``Additional
measures may be required in plans by District Managers.''
Government officials that exercise significant discretion when
carrying out important functions are officers of the United States, and
thus subject to the Appointments Clause. See Lucia v. SEC, 585 U.S.
237, 248 (2018); U.S. Const. Art. II, Sec. 2, cl. 2. Under 30 CFR
75.222(a), District Managers are granted nearly unlimited discretion to
add additional measures to roof control plans as they deem appropriate,
an important function. Accordingly, because District Managers are not
appointed pursuant to the Appointments Clause, that substantial
authority is unlawful.
Independently, the significant discretion in 30 CFR 75.222(a)
appears to violate the APA. This regulation essentially amounts to the
unfettered ability of the District Manager to draft and create ``laws''
which are civilly and criminally enforceable, without bicameral
presentment, and without notice and comment rulemaking. Various
statutory provisions, including 30 U.S.C. 811, give the Secretary
authority to issue health and safety regulations for mines. But, when
these regulations are substantive rules, with ``general or particular
applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or
prescribe law or policy,'' 5 U.S.C. 551(4), they are subject to the
notice and comment process. MSHA must present the rulemaking to the
public for comment, then issue a final rule responding to any comments.
See 5 U.S.C. 553. Title 30 CFR 75.222(a) skips this process entirely
when it vests District Managers with the authority to require
undesignated roof control plan provisions. The District Manager, by
adding additional criteria for roof control plans, is promulgating a
new substantive rule of particular applicability, without any of the
necessary process. Thus, 30 CFR 75.222(a) violates the APA.
MSHA seeks comments on any aspects of this proposed rule, including
the statutory authority, appointments clause issues and APA
requirements, and the costs and benefits of the District Manager's
vague authority.
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.
Background
The proposed rule would apply to all underground coal mines. The
existing rule allows the District Manager to require mine operators to
include plan requirements not specified in the statute or regulations,
while the proposed rule would rescind the power of District Managers to
do so. The proposed change would decrease the burden currently faced by
mine operators of having to revise their roof control plans to include
plan requirements not specified in the statute or regulations when
required by the District Manager. The proposed rule would maintain the
roof control plans requirements, except for the District Manager's
discretion to include plan requirements not specified in the statute or
regulations.
Based on MSHA internal data, the Agency estimates there will be
approximately 215 underground coal mines operating each year that would
be impacted by this proposed rule.\1\ All estimated figures are
expressed in 2024 dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of mines inspected at least once in 2024 and the
mine's current status is listed as active, intermittent, or
nonproducing active on April 14, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the baseline scenario mine operators would continue their
current practice of making changes to their roof control plans as
deemed necessary by their District Manager, not required elsewhere in
existing regulations. Under the proposed rule mine operators would no
longer need to include plan requirements not specified in the statute
or regulations.
Benefits
Under this proposed rule mine operators would no longer be required
to incorporate novel or unspecified provisions into roof control plans
at the discretion of the District Manager. This change does not impact
the existing requirements for the roof control plans that mine
operators are required to implement. This action will remove improper
regulatory burden and reduce arbitrary and unforeseen demands on mine
operators.
The benefits associated with the proposed rule cannot be easily
quantified due to existing information gaps and challenges with
quantifying the incremental shifts in costs and benefits under the
proposed rule. However, benefits are discussed in a qualitative manner
as described below. The potential benefits of the proposed rule
include:
(1) reduced production delays for mines--faster plan approval can
enable earlier initiation or resumption of
[[Page 28434]]
mining operations, reducing downtime, and increasing operational
efficiency;
(2) improved resource allocation--predictable and consistent plan
requirements reduce the need for mine operators to hire consultants or
devote engineering resources to anticipate or respond to unpredictable
District Managers' additional criteria;
(3) regulatory certainty--by aligning plan requirements strictly
with the regulations, operators can better plan capital expenditures,
staffing, and compliance investments, improving long-term planning and
cost efficiency; and
(4) increased domestic energy production--more predictable plan
approval processes may allow mines to optimize coal output, supporting
national energy goals and supply chain stability.
(5) prevents unauthorized rulemaking--preventing extra-statutory,
unaccountable and unauthorized rulemaking restores confidence in the
administrative process. MSHA requests public comments on potential
benefits associated with this proposed rule.
Cost Savings
MSHA estimates that mine operators would accrue a cost reduction
from efficiencies associated with specific and consistent roof control
plan requirements, both for initial plans and revisions. Removing the
provision asserting broad District Manager discretion with respect to
roof control plan requirements would result in cost savings to mine
operators who would be better able to anticipate required plan
revisions and receive plan approval more quickly. MSHA estimates that
mine operators would accrue a cost reduction from no longer having to
revise roof control plans at the request of the District Manager. The
Agency estimates that each year there are 84 new roof control plans,
and 482 revised roof control plans submitted to MSHA. Of which, 50
percent (283 plans) \2\ would need to be revised specifically at the
discretion of the District Manager. MSHA requests comment on the number
of plans that would be impacted by this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 283 revised plans at the request of the District Manager =
(84 new plans + 482 revised plans) x 50%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSHA used data from the May 2024 Occupational Employment and Wage
Statistics (OEWS) published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) for
hourly wage rates \3\ and adjusted the rates for benefits,\4\ wage
inflation,\5\ and overhead costs.\6\ The analysis period is 10 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ To obtain OEWS data, follow BLS's directions in its
Frequently Asked Questions: ``E. How to get OEWS data. 4. What are
the different ways to obtain OEWS estimates from this website?'' at
<a href="https://www.bls.gov/oes/oes_ques.htm">https://www.bls.gov/oes/oes_ques.htm</a>.
\4\ The benefit multiplier comes from BLS Employer Costs for
Employee Compensation accessed by menu at <a href="http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/srgate">http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/srgate</a> or directly at <a href="http://download.bls.gov/pub/time.series/cm/cm.data.0.Current">http://download.bls.gov/pub/time.series/cm/cm.data.0.Current</a>. Insert the data series CMU2030000405000D and
CMU2030000405000P, Private Industry Total benefits for Construction,
extraction, farming, fishing, and forestry occupations, which is
divided by 100 to convert to a decimal value. MSHA uses the latest
4-quarter moving average 2024Q1-2024Q4 to determine that 31.2
percent of total loaded wages are benefits. MSHA computes the
benefit multiplier with a number of detailed calculations, but it
may be approximated with the formula 1 + (benefit percentage/(1-
benefit percentage)). The benefit multiplier is 1.453 = 1 + (0.312/
(1-0.312)).
\5\ Wage inflation is the change in Series ID:
CIS2020000405000I; Seasonally adjusted; Series Title: Wages and
salaries for Private industry workers in Construction, extraction,
farming, fishing, and forestry occupations, Index. (<a href="https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/srgate">https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/srgate</a>; Inflation Multiplier = (Current Quarter
Cost Index Value/OEWS Wage Base Quarter Index Value). The inflation
multiplier is determined by using the employment price index from
the most current quarter, 2024Q4, divided by the base year and
quarter of the OEWS employment and wage statistics, 2024Q2. The
inflation multiplier is 1.022 = 166.7/163.1.
\6\ MSHA uses an overhead rate of 17 percent. This overhead rate
is based on a 2002 EPA report by Cody Rice, ``Wage Rates for
Economic Analysis of the Toxics Release Inventory Program'',
available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0387-0064">https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0387-0064</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cost savings generated by the proposed rule consists of the
following:
1. Revisions to Roof Control Plans Required by the District Manager
MSHA assumes that under the baseline each year there are 283 new
and revised roof control plans that are revised at the District
Managers discretion. MSHA estimates that it takes a coal mine
supervisor, earning $95.72 per hour, 4 hours to make the requested
revisions. Under the proposed rule these revisions would no longer need
to be made, creating an annual cost saving of $108,355.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ $108,355 = 283 plans x $95.72 per hour x 4 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Copying and Mailing Roof Control Plans
In the process of submitting roof control plans to MSHA, the
operator is expected to incur a cost to mail in any physical plans or
revisions. MSHA assumes that 100 percent of new plans and plan
revisions are submitted to MSHA physically via the mail. Under the
baseline the 283 plans that would have had to be resubmitted with
revisions to meet the District Manager's requirements. At a cost of $6
per plan for copying (20 pages per plan, $0.15 per page) and mailing
($3.00 per plan), by removing this requirement regarding the District
Manager would lead to an annual cost saving of $1,698.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ $1,698 = ((20 pages x $.15 cost per page) + $3 mailing cost)
x 283 plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary
Removing the provisions concerning the District Manager'
requirements for roof control plans would result in cost savings to
mine operators through avoided revisions to roof control plans that
would have been requested by the District Manager under the existing
regulation. Under the proposed rule, incremental cost savings are
estimated at $1.1 million over 10 years undiscounted. These cost
savings include no longer revising roof control plans to meet non-
statutory or regulatory requirements by the District Manager and the
avoided costs of copying and mailing revised roof control plans. For
this proposed rule, the Agency estimates that the annualized cost
saving across the three discount rates of 0 percent, 3 percent, and 7
percent would be $110,053.
While cost savings are quantified, some benefits are addressed in a
qualitative manner, such as reduced production delays, improved
resource allocation, regulatory certainty, increased domestic energy
production, and prevention of unauthorized rulemaking. More efficient
approval of roof control plans is expected to result in other cost
savings, including earlier initiation (or resumption) of production and
revenue due to simplified plan and amendment approvals, lower costs
associated with subject matter expert consultants hired by mine
operators in response to unanticipated Agency requirements, and other
efficiencies generated by increased regulatory predictability resulting
from this action. Benefits of the proposed rule could result from a
more efficient Agency review and approval of roof control plans for
underground coal mines. Underground coal mine operators are expected to
benefit from the proposed rule that clarifies the information and
provisions required in roof control plans. This is expected to help
ease operator confusion regarding what content is required when
developing roof control plans for MSHA approval and to result in an
increase in the time value of revenues generated by coal production.
Another potential benefit to the public is the increased opportunity to
produce coal, which would improve American energy production. The
proposed rule is deregulatory because it reduces qualitative burdens
for mine operators. Additionally, the Agency
[[Page 28435]]
experience supports cost savings that are not yet quantified.
MSHA requests comments on potential benefits or costs associated
with this proposed action.
Significance Determination
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 the
Agencies are required to submit the regulatory action to OIRA for
review. 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 the 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.
OIRA has designated this rule a ``significant regulatory action''
under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it will be reviewed by
OMB.
No alternatives are considered for this proposed deregulatory
action. MSHA requests comments on alternatives within the Agency's
authority that would generate similar or greater benefits.
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.
Under the RFA, MSHA uses the Small Business Administration's (SBA)
definition to set thresholds for small business sizes for the MNM and
coal mining industries defined at the 6-digit North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) level. For underground coal mines the
threshold is 1,500 employees and MSHA estimated that 115 underground
coal mines are defined as small.
MSHA evaluated data routinely provided by mine operators related to
the number of mines, employment, and production from MSHA's
Standardized Information System (MSIS) for underground coal mines. MSHA
calculated revenue as production times the average price of coal. Using
internal data, MSHA estimates that small coal mines produce roughly
92.1 million tons of coal annually. Using U.S Energy Information
Administration Annual Coal Report 2023 Table 28, Average Sales Price of
Coal by State and Mine Type, the average coal price for was $54.04 per
short ton in 2023. The price was then adjusted to 2024 dollars using
CPI-U, $55.63 per short ton, to estimate national coal revenues
generated by small coal mines of $5.1 billion.
MSHA assesses the impact on small entities by comparing the
estimated costs, in this case cost savings, of the proposed rule on
small entities affected by the rule to the estimated revenues for those
small entities. When estimated compliance costs are less than 1 percent
of the estimated revenues, the Agency believes it is generally
appropriate to conclude that there is no significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. When estimated compliance costs
exceed 1 percent of revenues, MSHA investigates whether further
analysis is required. The impact of the proposed rule, as a percentage
of revenues, is essentially zero: for small coal mine operators the
total annualized cost is $0.11 million while total annual revenue is
$5.1 billion, resulting in a ratio of 0.002 percent. Thus, no further
analysis is required.
MSHA considered the costs on small mines when developing the
proposed rule. MSHA reviewed this proposed rule, which eliminates
burdensome regulations, under the provisions of the RFA. MSHA initially
concludes that the impacts of this 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. However, this proposed rule would result in
substantive changes to another currently approved information
collection request, OMB Control Number 1219-0004 ``Roof Control Plan
for Underground Coal Mines.'' The currently approved information
collection request covers requirements in 30 CFR part 75, which sets
forth the procedures and rules to govern the submission and approval of
roof control plans.
Type of Review: Substantive Change to currently approved
information collection.
OMB Control Number: 1219-0004.
Title: Roof Control Plan for Underground Coal Mines.
Description of the ICR:
Background
The proposed rule would apply to all underground coal mines. The
existing rule allows the District Manager the discretion to revise roof
control plans, while the proposed rule would decrease the burden
currently faced by mine operators of having to revise their roof
control plans when required by the District Manager.
Based on MSHA's records, there were 167 active underground coal
mines from December 2022 to November 2023.
1. New Roof Control Plans and Revisions (30 CFR 75.215, 75.220(a)(1),
and 30 CFR 75.221(a), 30 CFR 75.223(a))
1-1. New Roof Control Plans (30 CFR 75.215, 75.220(a)(1), and 30 CFR
75.221(a))
Under 30 CFR 75.220, each underground coal mine operator must
develop a roof control plan that includes the information specified in
30 CFR 75.221(a). Under 30 CFR 75.215, mine operators must specify the
methods in the roof control plan that will be used to maintain a safe
travelway out of the longwall mining section through the tailgate side
of the
[[Page 28436]]
longwall and the procedures that will be followed if a ground failure
prevents travel out of the section through the tailgate side of the
longwall.
On average, 84 new roof control plans were submitted annually by 58
of the 167 underground coal mines. Of which, 50 percent (42 new plans)
would need to be revised specifically at the discretion of the District
Manager. While roof control plans vary according to the size and
complexity of each individual mine, MSHA estimates that on average it
takes a mine supervisor, earning $95.72 per hour, approximately 12
hours to prepare a new roof control plan. MSHA employees with
experience preparing roof control plans while employed by industry have
helped the Agency substantiate the time required to produce roof
control plans.
This proposed rule would result in a reduction of information
collection costs. The number of annual respondents would remain
unchanged at 58, the number of annual responses decreases from 84 to
42, the annual burden hour would decrease from 1,008 to 504 hours, and
the annual recordkeeping cost to respondents would remain unchanged at
$0.
1-2. Revised Roof Control Plans (30 CFR 75.223(a))
Under 30 CFR 75.223(a), a mine operator must propose revisions to
the roof control plan when conditions indicate that the plan is not
suitable or when accident and injury experience at the mine indicates
the plan is inadequate. Revisions may be required as a response to an
existing problem, or when instituting new technology, or as a cost
savings to the mine operator.
MSHA estimates that each mine operator may need to submit plan
revisions. An operator may submit more than one revision per year if
conditions require it. In 2023, MSHA received 482 plan revisions
submitted by 167 underground coal mines. Of which, 50 percent (241
revised plans) would need to be revised specifically at the discretion
of the District Manager. MSHA estimates that it takes a mine
supervisor, earning $95.72 per hour, approximately 4 hours to draft a
plan revision.
This proposed rule would result in a reduction in information
collection costs. The number of annual respondents remains unchanged at
167, the number of annual responses would decrease from 482 to 241, the
annual burden hour would decrease from 1,928 to 964 hours, and the
annual recordkeeping cost to respondents would remain unchanged at $0.
Copy and Mail New and Revised Roof Control Plans
Mine operators are expected to mail every new (42) and revised
(241) roof control plan to MSHA. MSHA estimates that the average
copying and mailing cost for the 283 new roof control plans or plan
revisions is $6.
This proposed rule would result in a reduction in information
collection costs. The number of annual respondents would remain
unchanged at 167, the number of annual responses would decrease from
566 to 283, and the annual recordkeeping cost to respondents would
decrease from $3,369 to $1,698.
2. Unplanned Roof or Rib Fall and Coal or Rock Burst (30 CFR 75.223(b))
Underground coal mine operators are also required to plot each
unplanned roof fall, rib fall, and coal rock burst on a mine map when
such incidents meet the criteria specified in 30 CFR 75.223(b). MSHA
estimates that it takes a mine supervisor, earning $95.72 per hour, 5
minutes to plot a roof fall or a coal or rock burst on a map. There
were approximately 453 unplanned roof falls and coal or rock bursts
which met such specified criteria and that occurred in underground coal
mines in 2023.
This proposed rule would not impact this information collection
cost. The number of annual respondents would remain unchanged at 167,
the number of annual responses would remain unchanged at 453, the
annual burden hour would remain unchanged at 38 hours, and the annual
recordkeeping cost to respondents would remain unchanged at $0.
Summary of the Collection of Information
Under the proposed rule, the estimated number of respondents,
responses, burden hours and recordkeeping costs to respondents would
decrease from the currently approved information collection request.
The reduction in information collection costs comes from removing the
requirement of revising roof control plans at the discretion of the
District Manager.
Affected Public: Businesses or For-Profit.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 167 (0 due to this proposed rule).
Frequency: On occasion.
Estimated Number of Responses: 736 (-283 due to this proposed
rule).
Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 1,506 (-1,468 hours due to this
proposed rule).
Estimated Recordkeeping Costs to Respondents: $1,698 (-$1,698 due
to this proposed).
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 Executive Order 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 Executive Order 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. 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' 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. 61 FR
4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). 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
[[Page 28437]]
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 determined
that the proposed rule 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 under the
OMB 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.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 75
Mine safety and health; Underground coal mines; Roof control plans;
District Managers.
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:
PART 75--MANDATORY SAFETY STANDARDS--UNDERGROUND COAL MINES
0
1. The authority citation for part 75 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811, 813(h), 957.
Subpart C--Roof Control
0
2. In Sec. 75.222, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 75.222 Roof control plan-approval criteria.
(a) This section sets forth the criteria that shall be considered
on a mine-by-mine basis in the formulation and approval of roof control
plans and revisions. Roof control plans that do not conform to the
applicable criteria in this section may be approved by the District
Manager, provided that effective control
[[Page 28438]]
of the roof, face and ribs can be maintained.
* * * * *
James P. McHugh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Mine Safety and Health
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2025-12230 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.