22148 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 20, 2011 / Notices 

Department’s Web site or a similar 

location. Additionally, in accordance 

with Section IVB, Part IIIa, of the SGA, 

which states that the Abstracts will be 

shared publicly, we will publish the 

Abstracts for all applications on the 

Department’s Web site or similar 

location. No other attachments to the 

application will be published. The 

Technical Proposals and Abstracts will 

not be published until after grants are 

awarded.’’ 

DOL recognizes that grant 

applications sometimes contain 

information that an applicant may 

consider proprietary or business 

confidential, or they may contain 

personally identifiable information. 

Information is considered proprietary or 

confidential commercial/business 

information when it is not usually 

disclosed outside your organization, and 

when its disclosure is likely to cause 

you substantial competitive harm. 

Personally identifiable information is 

information that can be used to 

distinguish or trace an individual’s 

identity, such as a name, social security 

number, date and place of birth, 

mother’s maiden name, or biometric 

records, or any other information that is 

linked or linkable to an individual, such 

as medical, educational, financial, and 

employment information. 

In order to ensure that such 

information is properly protected from 

disclosure when DOL posts the winning 

Technical Proposals, applicants whose 

technical proposals will be posted will 

be asked to submit a second redacted 

version of their Technical Proposal, 

with proprietary, confidential 

commercial/business, and personally 

identifiable information redacted. All 

non-public information about the 

applicant’s and consortium members’ 

staff (if applicable) should be removed 

as well. The Department will contact the 

applicants whose technical proposals 

will be published by letter or email, and 

provide further directions about how 

and when to submit the redacted 

version of the Technical Proposal. 

Submission of a redacted version of the 

Technical Proposal will constitute 

permission by the applicant, and 

anyone identified in the application, for 

DOL to post that redacted version. If an 

applicant fails to provide a redacted 

version of the Technical Proposal, DOL 

will publish the original Technical 

Proposal in full, after redacting 

personally identifiable information. 

(Note that the original, unredacted 

version of the Technical Proposal will 

remain part of the complete application 

package, including an applicant’s 

proprietary and confidential 

information and any personally 

identifiable information.) 

Applicants are encouraged to 

maximize the grant application 

information that will be publicly 

disclosed, and to exercise restraint and 

redact only information that truly is 

proprietary, confidential commercial/ 

business information, or capable of 

identifying a person. The redaction of 

entire pages or sections of the Technical 

Proposal is not appropriate, and will not 

be allowed, unless the entire portion 

merits such protection. Should a 

dispute arise about whether redactions 

are appropriate, DOL will follow the 

procedures outlined in the Department’s 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 

regulations (29 CFR part 70). 

Redacted information in grant 

applications will be protected by DOL 

from public disclosure in accordance 

with Federal law, including the Trade 

Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905), FOIA, and 

the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a). If DOL 

receives a FOIA request for your 

application, the procedures in DOL’s 

FOIA regulations for responding to 

requests for commercial/business 

information submitted to the 

government will be followed, as well as 

all FOIA exemptions and procedures. 29 

CFR 70.26. Consequently, it is possible 

that application of FOIA rules may 

result in release of information in 

response to a FOIA request that an 

applicant redacted in its ‘‘redacted 

copy.’’ 

The Department is working with OMB 

to meet the requirements of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1965 

(PRA), and will not require any 

applicants to submit any redactions 

until the PRA process has been 

completed. The public reporting burden 

for this collection of information is 

tentatively estimated at six hours per 

response.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Melissa Abdullah, Grants Management 

Specialist, Division of Federal 

Assistance, at (202) 693–3346. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 14th day of 

April 2011. 

Donna Kelly, 

Grant Officer, Employment & Training 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9514 Filed 4–19–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Mine Safety and Health Administration 

Petitions for Modification of 

Application of Existing Mandatory 

Safety Standards 

AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health 

Administration (MSHA), Labor. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Section 101(c) of the Federal 

Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and 

30 CFR part 44 govern the application, 

processing, and disposition of petitions 

for modification. This notice is a 

summary of petitions for modification 

filed by the parties listed below to 

modify the application of existing 

mandatory safety standards published 

in Title 30 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations. 

DATES: All comments on the petitions 

must be received by the Office of 

Standards, Regulations and Variances 

on or before May 20, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit your 

comments, identified by ‘‘docket 

number’’ on the subject line, by any of 

the following methods: 

1. Electronic Mail: zzMSHAcomments@dol.gov. Include the docket 

number of the petition in the subject 

line of the message. 

2. Facsimile: 1–202–693–9441. 

3. Regular Mail: MSHA, Office of 

Standards, Regulations and Variances, 

1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, 

Arlington, Virginia 22209–3939, 

Attention: Roslyn B. Fontaine, Acting 

Director, Office of Standards, 

Regulations and Variances. 

4. Hand-Delivery or Courier: MSHA, 

Office of Standards, Regulations and 

Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, 

Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia 22209– 

3939, Attention: Roslyn B. Fontaine, 

Acting Director, Office of Standards, 

Regulations and Variances. 

MSHA will consider only comments 

postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service or 

proof of delivery from another delivery 

service such as UPS or Federal Express 

on or before the deadline for comments. 

Individuals who submit comments by 

hand-delivery are required to check in 

at the receptionist desk on the 21st 

floor. 

Individuals may inspect copies of the 

petitions and comments during normal 

business hours at the address listed 

above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Barbara Barron, Office of Standards, 

Regulations and Variances at 202–693– 

9447 (Voice), barron.barbara@dol.gov 

(E-mail), or 202–693–9441 (Telefax). 

[These are not toll-free numbers.] 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 20, 2011 / Notices 22149 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine 

Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine 

Act) allows the mine operator or 

representative of miners to file a 

petition to modify the application of any 

mandatory safety standard to a coal or 

other mine if the Secretary determines 

that: (1) An alternative method of 

achieving the result of such standard 

exists which will at all times guarantee 

no less than the same measure of 

protection afforded the miners of such 

mine by such standard; or (2) that the 

application of such standard to such 

mine will result in a diminution of 

safety to the miners in such mine. In 

addition, the regulations at 30 CFR 

44.10 and 44.11 establish the 

requirements and procedures for filing 

petitions for modification. 

II. Petitions for Modification 

Docket Number: M–2011–007–C. 

Petitioner: Rosebud Mining Company, 

P.O. Box 1025, Northern Cambria, PA 

15714 

Mine: Beaver Valley Mine, MSHA 

Mine I.D No. 36–08725, located in 

Beaver County, Pennsylvania. Bergholz 

Mine, MSHA Mine I.D No. 33–04565, 

located in Jefferson County, Ohio. Dutch 

Run Mine, MSHA Mine I.D No. 36– 

08701; Darmac No. 2 Mine, MSHA I.D. 

No. 36–08135; and Logansport Mine, 

MSHA I.D. No. 36–08841, located in 

Armstrong County, Pennsylvania. 

Harmony Mine, MSHA Mine I.D No. 

36–09477, located in Clearfield County, 

Pennsylvania. Rossmoyne Mine, MSHA 

Mine I.D No. 36–09075; Knob Creek 

Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 36–09394; 

Starford Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 36– 

09637, located in Indiana County, 

Pennsylvania. Tusky Mine, MSHA I.D. 

No. 33–04509, located in Tuscarawas 

County, Ohio. Twin Rocks Mine, MSHA 

I.D. No. 36–08836, located in Cambria 

County, Pennsylvania. 

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.503 

(Permissible electric face equipment; 

maintenance) and 30 CFR 18.35(a)(5)(i) 

(Portable trailing cables and cords). 

Modification Request: The petitioner 

requests a modification of the existing 

standard to permit the use of 480 volt 

trailing cables with a maximum length 

of 1200 feet when #2 American Wire 

Gauge (AWG) cable is used and 480 volt 

trailing cables with a maximum length 

of 950 feet when #4 AWG cable is used 

on Fletcher Roof Ranger II roof bolters. 

The petitioner states that: (1) The 

maximum length of the 480 volt trailing 

cables will be 1200 feet when #2 AWG 

cable is being used. The maximum 

length of 480 volt trailing cable will be 

950 feet when #4 AWG cable is being 

used; (2) the trailing cable for the 480 

volt Fletcher Roof Ranger II bolters will 

not be smaller than #4 AWG cable; (3) 

all circuit breakers used to protect the 

#2 AWG trailing cable or the #4 AWG 

trailing cable exceeding 700 feet in 

length will have instantaneous trip units 

calibrated to trip at 500 amperes. The 

trip setting of these circuit breakers 

must be sealed to ensure that they 

cannot be changed, and these breakers 

will have permanent, legible labels. 

Each label will identify the circuit 

breaker as being suitable for protecting 

the cables; (4) replacement circuit 

breakers and/or instantaneous trip units, 

used to protect #2 AWG trailing cable or 

the #4 AWG trailing cable will be 

calibrated to trip at 500 amperes, and 

will be sealed; (5) all components that 

provide short-circuit protection will 

have sufficient interruption rating in 

accordance with the maximum 

calculated fault currents available; (6) 

during each production day, the trailing 

cables, and the circuit breakers will be 

examined in accordance with all 30 CFR 

provisions; (7) permanent warning 

labels will be installed and maintained 

on the load center identifying the 

location of each short-circuit protection 

device. These labels will warn miners 

not to change or alter the settings of 

these devices; (8) if the affected trailing 

cables are damaged in any way during 

the shift, the cable will be de-energized 

and repairs made; (9) the proposed 

alternative method will not be 

implemented until all miners who have 

been designated to operate the Roof 

Ranger II, or any other person 

designated to examine the trailing 

cables or trip settings on the circuit 

breakers, have received proper training; 

(10) within sixty days after this 

proposed decision and order becomes 

final, proposed revisions for the 

approved Part 48 training plan will be 

submitted to the District Manager. The 

training will include the following 

elements: (a) The hazards of setting the 

short-circuit device(s) too high to 

adequately protect the trailing cables; 

(b) how to verify that the circuit 

interrupting device(s) protecting the 

trailing cable(s) are properly set and 

maintained; (c) mining methods and 

operating procedures that will protect 

the trailing cables against damage; and 

(d) the proper procedure for examining 

the trailing cable to insure that the 

cable(s) are in safe operating condition 

by visually inspecting the entire cable, 

observing the insulation, the integrity of 

the splices, and nicks and abrasions. 

The petitioner asserts that the proposed 

alternative method will at all times 

guarantee no less than the same measure 

of protection afforded by the standard. 

Docket Number: M–2011–008–C. 

Petitioner: Blue Mountain Energy, 

Inc., 3607 County Road #65, Rangely, 

Colorado 81648. 

Mine: Deserado Mine, MSHA Mine 

I.D. No. 05–03505, located in Rio Blanco 

County, Colorado. 

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.503 

(Permissible electric face equipment; 

maintenance) and 30 CFR 18.35(a)(5)(i) 

(Portable trailing cables and cords). 

Modification Request: The petitioner 

requests a modification of the existing 

standard to permit the length of trailing 

cables to be increased for continuous 

mining machines, shuttle cars, and roof 

bolters beyond the maximum lengths 

allowed by Part 18. Maximum lengths of 

various sizes of trailing cables, when 

protected with circuit breakers with 

instantaneous trip settings are not to 

exceed the values given in Tables 8 and 

9, in Appendix I, of Part 18. The 

petitioner proposes to extend the 

continuous mining machine trailing 

cables, #2/0 American Wire Gauge 

(AWG) to a maximum length of 1,000 

feet, the shuttle car trailing cables #2 

AWG to a maximum length of 850 feet, 

and the roof bolter trailing cables #2 

AWG to a maximum length of 850 feet. 

Table 9, Appendix I, of Part 18 limits 

the maximum length of #2/0 AWG 

trailing cables to 850 feet, and the 

maximum length of #2 AWG trailing 

cables to 700 feet. The petitioner states 

that: (1) The short-circuit calculations 

that were performed show that the 

proposed alternative method will meet 

the following requirements: (a) Each 

trailing cable will be protected by an 

automatic three-pole molded case 

circuit breaker equipped with a means 

to provide short-circuit, grounded 

phase, under-voltage, and ground 

monitoring protection; (b) the trailing 

cable short-circuit protection will be 

provided by means of an adjustable 

instantaneous trip unit that is integral to 

the circuit breaker that is set as required 

by the statutory provision 30 CFR 

75.601–1, or 75 percent of the minimum 

available fault current, whichever is 

less. The short-circuit calculations 

determine the minimum phase-to-phase 

fault current available for each cable 

size, type, and length desired to be 

extended to lengths greater than 

allowable by statutory provisions; and 

(c) section 75.601 requires that ‘‘shortcircuit protection for trailing cables be 

provided by automatic circuit breaker or 

other no less effective device approved 

by the Secretary of adequate currentinterrupting capacity in each 

ungrounded conductor’’. The shortVerDate Mar<15>2010 17:52 Apr 19, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
22150 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 20, 2011 / Notices 

circuit calculations also determine the 

maximum fault duties for the circuit 

breakers that protect the trailing cables 

to assure that they have adequate 

interrupting capacities. (2) The shortcircuit calculations also include the 

addition of distribution boxes that will 

power the continuous miner, shuttle 

cars, and roof bolter. The distribution 

boxes will be mounted on a monorail 

and each will be supplied from the 

power center by means of 350kemil, 

2kV, Type SHD–GC power cable that is 

700 feet long. There will be one 

distribution box that will power the roof 

bolter and shuttle cars, and one 1,000V 

distribution box that will power the 

continuous miner. The resulting system 

is referred to as the ‘‘Deserado Mine 

Development Monorail System’’. The 

continuous mining machines are rated 

at 950 volts Root Mean Squared (RMS) 

nominal, three-phase, 60 Hertz, the 

shuttle cars are rated at 460 volts RMS 

nominal, three-phase, 60 Hertz; and the 

roof bolters are rated at 460 volts RMS 

nominal, three-phase, 60 Hertz. The 

nominal voltage of the continuous 

miner section electrical distribution 

system will not exceed 1,000 volts and 

480 volts for the respective section 

transformer secondary voltages. Actual 

voltage at which the circuits or systems 

operate may vary slightly from the 

nominal voltage within a range that 

permits satisfactory operation of the 

equipment; (3) The one-line diagrams 

and short-circuit calculation models 

included in the calculations reflect the 

actual existing Deserado Mine highvoltage electrical distribution system 

and continuous miner section electrical 

power distribution and control system 

to be utilized; (4) the petitioner desires 

approval to extend the length of the 

specified trailing cables to improve the 

safety and efficiency of the mining 

operation; and (5) due to the unusually 

large support pillar size in the longwall 

gate entries, the longer cable lengths 

will allow a more methodical mining 

process. Safety will be enhanced due to 

the decrease in power moves, cable 

handling, and cable damage. Electrical 

protection and safety will not be 

diminished since the trailing cables will 

still be provided with short-circuit 

protection that is set conservatively. The 

petitioner asserts that the proposed 

alternative method will at all times 

guarantee no less than the same measure 

of protection to all miners as would be 

provided by the standard. 

Docket Number: M–2011–009–C. 

Petitioner: River View Coal, LLC, 835 

St., Route 1179, Waverly, Kentucky 

42462. 

Mine: River View Mine, MSHA Mine 

I.D. No. 15–19374, located in Union 

County, Kentucky. 

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1100– 

3 (Condition and examination of 

firefighting equipment). 

Modification Request: The petitioner 

requests a modification of the existing 

standard to permit an alternative 

method of compliance for maintaining 

the condition and examination of 

firefighting equipment. The petitioner 

proposes to maintain the slope belt 

waterline as a ‘‘dry line’’. The petitioner 

states that: (1) River View Mine is a 16 

MMU continuous miner operation 

located near Waverly, Union County, 

Kentucky. The mine operates in two 

coal seams, #11 and the #9 seam 

separated by approximately 110 feet of 

competent interburden, the #9 seam 

being the lowest seam. The mine is 

accessed by one slope and one intake 

return dual compartment shaft. The 

slope is 16 degrees, 1625 feet, dual 

compartment, with the upper 

compartment containing the slope belt, 

and the lower compartment containing 

the track entry used for lowering heavy 

equipment; and (2) As an alternative to 

maintaining the waterline as being 

‘‘charged’’ the petitioner proposes the 

following: (a) The 2 inch waterline will 

be installed the full length of the slope 

belt with fire hydrants (water outlets) 

located every 300 feet or closer if 

necessary. The water line will be 

maintained as a ‘‘dry line’’ year round; 

(b) with two electronically actuated 

solenoid valves installed in parallel will 

be located inline of the slope belt 

waterline at the tailpiece of the slope 

belt in the #9 seam. Electrical power 

will be necessary to hold these valves in 

closed position. The valves will return 

to the open position (charging the 

waterline) upon loss of voltage or when 

activated; (c) the solenoid valves will be 

connected to the CO monitoring system 

through PLC programming. The valves 

will be automatically actuated if any of 

the CO sensors along the slope belt 

detect a level of 25 parts per million 

(ppm) for longer than 180 seconds; (d) 

a manually operated bypass valve will 

be installed in parallel with the 

automatic valves. This manual valve 

will normally be closed; (e) water will 

automatically charge the waterline if 

either the automatic valves or the 

manual bypass is moved to the open 

position; (f) the solenoid valves will be 

capable of being actuated at a manned 

surface location, either the CO 

monitoring room or the security station. 

Either, two miners on each shift or the 

security station staff will be trained to 

actuate the solenoid valves. The security 

station is staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days 

a week; (g) a manually operated outlet 

will be installed downstream of the 

solenoid valves. The manual valve will 

be designated as a test/drain valve and 

will be closed except when testing the 

system or when draining water after 

testing or actuation; (h) a second 

manually operated valve will be 

installed just downstream of the test/ 

drain valve. This valve will be open at 

all times, except when testing of the 

system is required. During testing, this 

valve will isolate the waterline that 

supplies the fire hydrants along the 

slope belt. This will allow the solenoid 

valves to be tested and will assure that 

the system is functioning properly 

without filling the entire length of the 

waterline, thus creating the need to 

drain a large volume of water; (i) all 

valves and switches that are part of this 

system will be clearly marked and 

labeled as to their intended purpose; (j) 

the system will be examined monthly 

and the results of this examination will 

be recorded; (k) pressure relief valves 

will be located along the waterline to 

relieve pressure (entrapped air) when 

the waterline is charging; (l) at least 500 

feet of fire hose will be kept at the 

following three strategic locations: (i) 

Slope belt head house (Top of the slope 

belt); (ii) #11 seam dump point 

(Approximately 950 feet down the 

slope); (iii) #9 seam dump point 

(Located at the bottom of the slope), and 

additional fire hose will be kept at 

strategic locations if needed. The 

petitioner asserts that the proposed 

alternative method will provide a 

measure of protection to all miners at 

River View Mine greater than that of the 

standard. 

Docket Number: M–2011–010–C. 

Petitioner: Brooks Run Mining 

Company, LLC, 208 Business Street, 

Beckley, West Virginia 25801. 

Mine: Still Run No. 3 Mine, MSHA 

Mine I.D No.46–09301, located in 

Wyoming County, West Virginia. 

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1101– 

1(b) (Deluge-type water spray systems). 

Modification Request: The petitioner 

requests a modification of the existing 

standard to permit deluge-type water 

spray systems to be used without blowoff dust covers on the nozzles. The 

petitioner states that: (1) Currently, each 

nozzle is provided with a blow-off dust 

cover; (2) weekly inspections and 

functional tests of its complete delugetype water spray system are currently 

being conducted at the mine; (3) due to 

frequent inspections and functional 

testing of the system, the dust covers are 

not necessary because the nozzles can 

be maintained in an unclogged 

condition through weekly use; (4) it is 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 20, 2011 / Notices 22151 

burdensome to recap the large number 

of covers weekly after each inspection 

and functional test. The petitioner 

proposes to continue its weekly 

inspection and functional testing of the 

complete deluge-type water spray 

system, and to remove the blow-off dust 

covers from the nozzles. The petitioner 

asserts that the proposed alternative 

method will at all times guarantee no 

less than the same measure of protection 

afforded the miners as would be 

provided by the existing standard. 

Docket Number: M–2011–011–C. 

Petitioner: Highland Mining 

Company, LLC, 530 French Road, 

Waverly, Kentucky. 

Mine: Highland No. 9 Mine, MSHA 

Mine I.D No. 15–02709, located in 

Union County, Kentucky. 

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1100– 

2(b) (Quantity and location of 

firefighting equipment). 

Modification Request: The petitioner 

requests a modification of the existing 

standard to permit the use of a dry 

waterline system to provide fire 

suppression in the slope area of the 

Highland No. 9 Mine to ensure the 

availability of water during freezing and 

subfreezing weather conditions and to 

prevent damage to the waterline and 

related firefighting equipment caused by 

freezing and subfreezing conditions 

during cold weather seasons. The 

petitioner proposes to establish, by 

designation, a dry waterline system with 

manual water-charging capabilities in 

the slope area to prevent water 

contained in the otherwise charged 

waterline from freezing, thereby 

preventing water from flowing through 

the waterline during an emergency, or 

otherwise damaging the waterline and 

related firefighting equipment that may 

be connected to the waterline from 

expansion of ice during freezing and 

subfreezing conditions. The petitioner 

states that: (1) The area to be serviced 

by the dry waterline system is from the 

surface mouth of the slope to the slope 

bottom; (2) areas of the mine in the 

designated terminus of the dry waterline 

system at the slope bottom will continue 

to be serviced by a charged waterline as 

currently installed and maintained; 

(3) in order to provide fire protection in 

the area designated as the dry waterline 

system, the following procedures will 

apply when the dry waterline system is 

in use: (a) the slope beltline will be 

monitored by a carbon monoxide (CO) 

detection system. A person trained in 

the operation of the CO detection 

system will be on duty at all times when 

employees are underground; (b) all 

hoistmen, surface electricians, belt 

mechanics, and surface equipment 

operators will be trained in the location 

and operation procedures of valves and 

pumps necessary to pressurize the 

waterline in the slope, should 

pressurization become necessary during 

an emergency; and (c) 300 feet of water 

hose, nozzles, and wrenches will be 

stored at the mouth of the slope 

(surface) on the emergency landing and 

at the bottom of the slope; (4) there are 

no belt drives located between the slope 

mouth at the surface and the slope 

bottom in the area designated as a dry 

waterline system; (5) there will be a 

limit of five minutes elapsed time from 

actuation of the fire detection device to 

full water pressurization of such dry 

waterline, and it will meet flow and 

pressure requirements. Activation of the 

waterline will be accomplished by 

energizing the pressure pump and 

opening a valve designated as point ‘‘A’’, 

and by closing a drain line and opening 

a valve at the slope mouth designated as 

point ‘‘B’’; (6) a gauge will be provided 

to indicate that a supply of water under 

pressure is available to the dry 

waterline; (7) to prevent freezing, ice, or 

slush accumulations which could block 

the waterline, the dry waterline will be 

drained or purged after use, charged or 

tested, or it will be maintained with a 

low-pressure water-flow sufficient to 

prevent it from freezing. All valves will 

likewise be protected; (8) sufficient 

water will be available at all times to 

adequately charge and supply the needs 

of the dry waterline; (9) each dry 

waterline pressurization system will be 

visually inspected weekly and a test of 

the electrical and mechanical functions 

of the system will be conducted 

monthly. The dry waterline will be 

pressurized during the monthly tests; 

and (10) this petition is only applicable 

to seasonal periods in which 

temperatures below 32 degrees 

Fahrenheit may be anticipated. The 

petitioner asserts that the proposed 

alternative method will not result in a 

diminution of safety to the miners. 

Docket Number: M–2011–002–M. 

Petitioner: U.S. Silver Idaho, Inc., 

1801 California Street, Suite 4900, 

Denver, Colorado 80202. 

Mine: Galena Mine, MSHA Mine I.D 

No. 10–00082, located in Shoshone 

County, Idaho. 

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 

57.9300(a) (Berms and guardrails). 

Modification Request: The petitioner 

requests a modification of the existing 

standard to permit an alternative 

method of compliance as it applies to 

providing guardrails for a pond at the 

banks of the roadway where a drop off 

exists of sufficient grade or depth to 

cause a vehicle to overturn or endanger 

persons in equipment. The petitioner 

states that: (1) Installing a berm around 

the tailings dam during construction of 

the lift for the impoundment would 

cause workers to compact the road 

surrounding the road from edge to edge 

to ensure the integrity of the 

impoundment and the road surrounding 

it; (2) the compaction of material to 90 

percent density is performed by a cat 

loader and an end dump and is 

specifically required by a permit issued 

by the State of Idaho Department of 

Water Resources Dam Safety Division. 

This state agency comes to the mine to 

inspect the lift to ensure compliance 

with the permit; (3) after proper 

compaction is achieved a berm is 

installed on the outside edge of the 

subject road but not the side closest to 

the impoundment. Placing a berm on 

either side of the subject road prior to 

achieving required compaction would 

compromise the structural integrity of 

the embankment. In addition, placing a 

berm on the inside of the subject road 

would lift the tailings distribution lines 

approximately three feet in elevation 

and could result in enough head loss in 

the line to cause a tailings spill 

upstream of the impoundment. A 

tailings spill upstream of the 

impoundment would report directly to 

Shields Creek below the Coeur Mill. 

Lack of compaction would also cause an 

obvious hazard to anyone driving on the 

road, as the relatively uncompacted 

road could give way under the weight 

of the equipment. As required by the 

permit, the tailings distribution point is 

frequently changed in order to ensure 

proper distribution of tailings against 

the dam. If there was an earthen berm 

installed on the inside of the roadway, 

the berm would have to be breached 

each time the distribution point is 

changed. As such, current application of 

the standard, requiring a berm around 

the tailings pond will result in a 

diminution of safety for miners at the 

Galena Mine. The petitioner proposes 

that: (1) A locked gate is installed at the 

only entrance point to the roadway; (2) 

signs are posted warning that the 

roadway is not bermed; (3) the 

maximum speed limit of 15 miles per 

hour is posted, and speed limit signs 

will be posted at appropriate entrance 

locations to the impoundment roadway; 

(4) no operations will be conducted on 

the road when road traction may be 

impacted by weather conditions, unless 

corrective measures, such as the use of 

tire chains, plowing, or sanding are 

taken to improve traction; (5) a pipeline 

will be located on the inside edge of the 

impoundment roadway to serve as a 

guide for mobile vehicle operations. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
22152 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 20, 2011 / Notices 

Delineators will be used along the 

perimeter of areas of the roadway where 

no pipeline was laid and there was a 

drop-off sufficient for equipment to 

overturn. Delineators are installed along 

the perimeter of the impoundment so 

that, for both directions of travel, the 

reflective surfaces of at least three 

delineators along each elevation will 

always be visible to the driver and 

spaced at intervals sufficient to indicate 

the edges and altitude of the roadway; 

(6) access to the locked gate will be 

limited to individuals who have 

received and successfully completed 

training consisting of applicable task 

training, and a supervised tour of the 

impoundment roadway. A training form 

will be completed for each employee 

that receives the training and will detail 

the topics covered in the training. 

Personnel deemed essential by the 

petitioner to operate equipment in the 

area who has not received the training 

will be accompanied by a person who 

has received the specified training. 

Training will be valid for four years 

from the date of completion; (7) records 

of the training will be maintained for 

four years and made available to MSHA 

upon request; and (8) to enable U.S. 

Silver to not berm the inside of the 

impoundment roadway not only 

prevents a diminution of safety for 

miners, it provides an alternative 

method of achieving the results of the 

standard which at all times guarantees 

no less than the same measure of 

protection to all miners at the Galena 

Mine afforded by the standard. 

Dated: April 12, 2011. 

Patricia W. Silvey, 

Certifying Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9195 Filed 4–19–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–43–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Mine Safety and Health Administration 

Petitions for Modification of 

Application of Existing Mandatory 

Safety Standards 

AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health 

Administration (MSHA), Labor. 

ACTION: Notice of Withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: Section 101(c) of the Federal 

Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and 

30 CFR part 44 govern the application, 

processing, and disposition of petitions 

for modification. This notice is to 

withdraw a petition for modification for 

the Speed Mining, Inc., American Eagle 

Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 46–05437. MSHA 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register on January 14, 2011 (76 FR 

2725). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Barbara Barron, Office of Standards, 

Regulations and Variances at 202–693– 

9447 (voice), barron.barbara@dol.gov 

(e-mail), or 202–693–9441 (telefax). 

(These are not toll-free numbers.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine 

Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine 

Act) allows the mine operator or 

representative of miners to file a 

petition to modify the application of any 

mandatory safety standard to a coal or 

other mine if the Secretary determines 

that: (1) An alternative method of 

achieving the result of such standard 

exists which will at all times guarantee 

no less than the same measure of 

protection afforded the miners of such 

mine by such standard; or (2) that the 

application of such standard to such 

mine will result in a diminution of 

safety to the miners in such mine. In 

addition, the regulations at 30 CFR 

44.10 and 44.11 establish the 

requirements and procedures for filing 

petitions for modification. However, 

petitioner requested a modification of 

30 CFR 75.1403–5(g), which is a 

safeguard and is within the authority of 

an Authorized Representative of the 

Secretary to prescribe or modify. See 30 

CFR 75.1403–1. Therefore, the Speed 

Mining, Inc., American Eagle Mine, 

MSHA I.D. No. 46–05437, Petition for 

Modification is withdrawn. 

Dated: April 12, 2011. 

Patricia W. Silvey, 

Certifying Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9194 Filed 4–19–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–43–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Mine Safety and Health Administration 

Petitions for Modification of 

Application of Existing Mandatory 

Safety Standards 

AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health 

Administration (MSHA), Labor. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Section 101(c) of the Federal 

Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and 

30 CFR Part 44 govern the application, 

processing, and disposition of petitions 

for modification. This notice is a 

summary of petitions for modification 

filed by the parties listed below to 

modify the application of existing 

mandatory safety standards published 

in Title 30 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations. 

DATES: All comments on the petitions 

must be received by the Office of 

Standards, Regulations and Variances 

on or before May 20, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit your 

comments, identified by ‘‘docket 

number’’ on the subject line, by any of 

the following methods: 

1. Electronic Mail: zzMSHAcomments@dol.gov. Include the docket 

number of the petition in the subject 

line of the message. 

2. Facsimile: 1–202–693–9441. 

3. Regular Mail: MSHA, Office of 

Standards, Regulations and Variances, 

1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, 

Arlington, Virginia 22209–3939, 

Attention: Roslyn B. Fontaine, Acting 

Director, Office of Standards, 

Regulations and Variances. 

4. Hand-Delivery or Courier: MSHA, 

Office of Standards, Regulations and 

Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, 

Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia 22209– 

3939, Attention: Roslyn B. Fontaine, 

Acting Director, Office of Standards, 

Regulations and Variances. 

MSHA will consider only comments 

postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service or 

proof of delivery from another delivery 

service such as UPS or Federal Express 

on or before the deadline for comments. 

Individuals who submit comments by 

hand-delivery are required to check in 

at the receptionist desk on the 21st 

floor. 

Individuals may inspect copies of the 

petitions and comments during normal 

business hours at the address listed 

above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Barbara Barron, Office of Standards, 

Regulations and Variances at 202–693– 

9447 (Voice), barron.barbara@dol.gov 

(E-mail), or 202–693–9441 (Telefax). 

[These are not toll-free numbers.] 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine 

Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine 

Act) allows the mine operator or 

representative of miners to file a 

petition to modify the application of any 

mandatory safety standard to a coal or 

other mine if the Secretary determines 

that: (1) An alternative method of 

achieving the result of such standard 

exists which will at all times guarantee 

no less than the same measure of 

protection afforded the miners of such 

mine by such standard; or (2) that the 

application of such standard to such 

mine will result in a diminution of 

safety to the miners in such mine. In 

addition, the regulations at 30 CFR 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES