51058 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 2011 / Notices 

of the net impact of services provided 

by YouthBuild programs funded by the 

Department and the Corporation. This 

evaluation will offer policymakers, 

program administrators, service 

providers, future applicants, and the 

public information about the relative 

effectiveness of YouthBuild programs, 

how the effectiveness varies by target 

population, and how the services are 

implemented. The study will also 

produce estimates of the benefits and 

costs of these services. Compared to 

peers who remain in school, high school 

dropouts are more likely to be 

disconnected from school and work, be 

incarcerated, be unmarried, and have 

children outside of marriage. Thus, the 

evaluation represents an important 

opportunity to add to the growing body 

of knowledge about the impacts of 

‘‘second chance’’ programs for youth 

who have dropped out of high school. 

The complete experimental design 

impact evaluation of the YouthBuild 

program will take seven years, including 

a follow-up period that extends for four 

years after the last applicant is enrolled 

in the study and additional time for 

analyzing and reporting the results. The 

evaluation is funded by both the 

Department and the Corporation. It will 

measure core program outcomes 

including educational attainment, 

postsecondary planning, employment, 

earnings, personal development, 

delinquency and involvement with the 

criminal justice system. Random 

assignment will be conducted in 

approximately 60 randomly-selected 

DOL-funded sites and 17 randomlyselected CNCS-funded sites. Youth in 

those sites who are eligible for 

YouthBuild services will be randomly 

assigned to one of two groups: the 

program group, which can receive all 

YouthBuild services, and the control 

group, which cannot receive 

YouthBuild services for a 24 months 

after enrollment but can receive services 

from other organizations in their 

communities. In the participating 

YouthBuild sites, all eligible applicants 

for YouthBuild services will be asked to 

participate in the study during the 12– 

18 month study enrollment period. 

They will be informed of the evaluation, 

provided an opportunity to ask 

questions or seek clarification of their 

role and responsibilities should they 

agree to participate, and then asked to 

give their consent to participate. 

Applicants who do not consent to 

participate in the study will not be 

allowed to enroll in YouthBuild or 

receive services or training funded by 

the YouthBuild program. As will be the 

case for those in the control group, those 

who do not consent to participate in the 

study can receive training services from 

other organizations in their 

communities. The Department expects a 

total of about 4,600 YouthBuild program 

applicants to be randomly assigned to 

one of the two groups under the 

evaluation. 

The Department has determined that 

it is in the public interest to use a 

random assignment impact 

methodology because random 

assignment is generally viewed as the 

best and most feasible design for 

credibly and reliably answering 

questions about the effectiveness of 

social programs and policy 

interventions. More than any other 

approach, random assignment 

minimizes the chance that any observed 

differences in outcomes between 

research groups are due to unmeasured, 

preexisting differences between 

members of the groups. When 

implemented carefully, random 

assignment creates groups that are 

almost identical in their characteristics 

before the intervention, differing only in 

whether they are exposed to the 

intervention. As a result, differences in 

average outcomes between the groups 

can be causally attributed to the 

intervention. 

The Department recognizes that this 

design will assign some applicants to 

the control group, which will not have 

access to YouthBuild services. However, 

those who are assigned to the control 

group will be eligible for other services 

in their communities and also eligible to 

reapply for YouthBuild services 24 

months after enrollment into the study. 

To protect the rights and welfare of 

YouthBuild applicants who agree to 

participate in the evaluation, the 

evaluation team, lead by researchers 

from MDRC submitted the YouthBuild 

evaluation design to MDRC’s 

Institutional Review Board (IRB) for 

concurrence. An IRB is a committee 

specifically responsible for protecting 

the rights and welfare of humans 

involved in biomedical and behavioral 

research. On May 3, 2011, MDRC’s IRB 

determined this study to be of no more 

than minimal risk and approved it. 

II. Desired Focus of Comments 

Currently, DOL is soliciting comments 

concerning the Department’s intent to 

carry out the random assignment study 

described above: for the limited 

enrollment period, applicants for 

YouthBuild services and training would 

be required to consent to participate in 

the study, where they would be 

randomly assigned to one of the two 

research groups. Applicants who do not 

consent to participate would be 

ineligible to receive YouthBuild services 

and training. This requirement would 

apply only to applicants in the limited 

number of YouthBuild program sites 

selected to participate in this 

evaluation. 

The Department seeks comments 

focused on whether there is a 

methodology that would yield as 

credible and reliable an evaluation of 

the YouthBuild program as random 

assignment, but avoids adverse affect on 

the study participants. The Department 

also welcomes comments that suggest 

ways to more effectively minimize any 

adverse impact on the study 

participants who participate in the 

study described above. 

III. Current Actions 

Following receipt of comments in 

response to this request, ETA will 

adjust, as appropriate, the approach for 

temporarily requiring applicants for 

YouthBuild services and training at 

select DOL-funded and CNCS-funded 

sites to participate in random 

assignment. Comments submitted in 

response to this request will also 

become a matter of public record. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of 

August, 2011. 

Jane Oates, 

Assistant Secretary, Employment and 

Training Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20971 Filed 8–16–11; 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, 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 

submitted to the Mine Safety and Health 

Administration (MSHA) by the parties 

listed below to modify the application 

of existing mandatory safety standards 

codified 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 September 16, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit your 

comments, identified by ‘‘docket 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 2011 / Notices 51059 

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: 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’s 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 (Facsimile). 

[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. 

II. Petitions for Modification 

Docket Number: M–2011–022–C. 

Petitioner: Sage Creek Coal Company, 

LLC, Three Gateway Center, Suite 1340, 

401 Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania 15222–1000. 

Mine: Peabody Sage Creek Mine, 

MSHA Mine I.D. No. 05–04952, located 

in Routt County, Colorado. 

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 

75.1909(b)(6) (Nonpermissible dieselpowered equipment; design and 

performance requirements. 

Modification Request: The petitioner 

requests a modification of the existing 

standard to permit an alternative 

method of compliance with respect to 

the braking systems on a grader. The 

petitioner states that: (1) The petition is 

limited in application to the diesel 

motorgraders. (2) The maximum speed 

on the Diesel Motorgraders will be 

limited to 10 mph by: (a) permanently 

blocking out the gear(s) or any gear 

ratio(s) that provide higher speeds. The 

device will limit the vehicle speed in 

both forward and reverse; and (b) using 

transmission(s) and differential(s) 

geared in accordance with the 

equipment manufacturer which limits 

the maximum speed to 10 mph. (3) Prior 

to implementing the alternative method: 

(a) The diesel grader will be inspected 

by MSHA to determine compliance with 

the terms and conditions; (b) grader 

operators will be trained to recognize 

appropriate levels of speed for different 

road conditions and slopes; (c) grader 

operators will be trained to lower the 

moldboard (grader blade) to provide 

additional stopping capability in 

emergencies; and (d) grader operators 

will be trained to recognize the 

transmission gear blocking device and 

its proper application requirements. (4) 

The grader will comply with all other 

applicable requirements of the Federal 

Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and 

the applicable requirements of 30 CFR, 

parts 75 and 77. (5) Within 60 days after 

the proposed decision and order 

becomes final, the petitioner will submit 

proposed revisions for its approved 30 

CFR part 48 training plan to the District 

Manager. These revisions will specify 

initial and refresher training regarding 

the terms and conditions stated in the 

petition. 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–2011–023–C. 

Petitioner: Peabody Twentymile 

Mining LLC, Three Gateway Center, 

Suite 1340, 401 Liberty Avenue, 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222–1000. 

Mine: Foidel Creek Mine, MSHA 

Mine I.D. No. 05–03836, located in 

Routt County, Colorado. 

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 

75.1909(b)(6) (Nonpermissible dieselpowered equipment; design and 

performance requirements). 

Modification Request: The petitioner 

requests a modification of the existing 

standard to permit an alternative 

method of compliance with respect to 

the braking systems on a grader. The 

petitioner states that: (1) The petition is 

limited in application to the Diesel 

Motorgraders. (2) The maximum speed 

on the Diesel Motorgraders will be 

limited to 10 mph by: (a) permanently 

blocking out the gear(s) or any gear 

ratio(s) that provide higher speeds. The 

device will limit the vehicle speed in 

both forward and reverse; and (b) using 

transmission(s) and differential(s) 

geared in accordance with the 

equipment manufacturer which limits 

the maximum speed to 10 mph. (3) Prior 

to implementing the alternative method: 

(a) the diesel grader will be inspected by 

MSHA to determine compliance with 

the terms and conditions; (b) grader 

operators will be trained to recognize 

appropriate levels of speed for different 

road conditions and slopes; (c) grader 

operators will be trained to lower the 

moldboard (grader blade) to provide 

additional stopping capability in 

emergencies; and (d) grader operators 

will be trained to recognize the 

transmission gear blocking device and 

its proper application requirements. (4) 

The grader will comply with all other 

applicable requirements of the Federal 

Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and 

the applicable requirements of 30 CFR, 

Parts 75 and 77. (5) Within 60 days after 

the proposed decision and order 

becomes final, the petitioner will submit 

proposed revisions for its approved 30 

CFR part 48 training plan to the District 

Manager. These revisions will specify 

initial and refresher training regarding 

the terms and conditions stated in the 

petition. 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–2011–005–M. 

Petitioner: Troy Mine, Inc., P.O. Box 

1660, Highway 56 South Mine Road, 

Troy, Montana 59935. 

Mine: Troy Mine, MSHA Mine I.D. 

No. 24–01467, located in Lincoln 

County, Montana. 

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 57.11055 

(Inclined escapeways). 

Modification Request: The petitioner 

requests a modification of the existing 

standard to permit an alternative 

method of compliance to permit the use 

of a 317-foot portion of a designated 

secondary escapeway, which is steelencased, with secure landings, and 

equipped with a leaky feeder 

communication system. The petitioner 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
51060 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 2011 / Notices 

seeks a modification of the existing 

standard: (1) As it pertains to a 

secondary escapeway/raisebore from the 

C Bed to the Lower Quartzite area; (2) 

The secondary escapeway/raisebore 

from the C Bed to the Lower Quartzite 

area is 42 inches in diameter and steelencased. The escapeway/raisebore from 

the C Bed to the Lower Quartzite area 

is equipped with a ladder and secure 

landings at least every 30 feet, in 

conformance with 30 CFR 57.11025. 

The secondary escapeway/raisebore 

from the C Bed to the Lower Quartzite 

area consists of two sections. The first 

section is 114 feet, and the second 

section is 317 feet. The first section 

begins at the C Bed and ends at the 

Upper C Bed. The second section begins 

at the Upper C Bed and ends at the 

Lower Quartzite area. Refer to 

Attachments A and B for diagrams of 

the area in question; (3) The mine 

proposes an alternative method of 

compliance with the existing standard, 

by installation of a leaky feeder 

communication system in the steelencased secondary escapeway. The 

alternative method provides mines in 

the escapeway with continuous 

communication with the surface and 

will allow for notification that 

personnel are in the raise and on their 

way out. The leaky feeder system will 

be protected from damage due to steel 

encasement of the escapeway/raisebore. 

The steel encasement of the escapeway/ 

raisebore will also prevent exposure to 

falling rock in the secondary escapeway 

to miners. The landings spaced at a 

maximum of 30 foot intervals are 

configured to provide protection to 

resting miners from falling down the 

escapeway; (4) In the alternative to 

compliance with the existing standard, 

the petitioner proposes to: (a) Install a 

leaky feeder communication cable in the 

secondary escapeway/raisebore from the 

C Bed to the Lower Quartzite area; (b) 

install radio boxes in the secondary 

escapeway/raisebore from the C Bed to 

the Lower Quartzite area. The radio 

boxes will each contain: (i) A radio; (ii) 

A charging station for the radio; and (iii) 

An extra battery for the radio; (c) within 

45 days after the proposed decision and 

order becomes final, the petitioner will 

submit proposed revisions to the escape 

and evacuation plan as required in 30 

CFR 57.11053; and (d) with 60 days 

after the proposed decision and order 

becomes final, the petitioner will submit 

proposed revisions of its approved 30 

CFR part 48 training plan to the Metal/ 

Nonmetal Safety and Health District 

Manager. In addition to the 

requirements specified, these proposed 

revisions will specify initial and 

refresher training regarding the terms 

and conditions stated in the proposed 

decision and order. The petitioner 

asserts that the proposed alternative 

method will at all times guarantee no 

less than the same measure of protection 

afforded by the existing standard. 

Docket Number: M–2011–006–M. 

Petitioner: Degerstrom Ventures, 3268 

Blackfoot River Road, Soda Springs, 

Idaho 83276. 

Mine: Enoch Valley Mine and South 

Rasmussen Mine, MSHA Mine I.D. No. 

10–01702, located in Caribou County, 

Idaho. 

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 

56.9300(a) (Berms or guardrails). 

Modification Request: The petitioner 

requests a modification of the existing 

standard to permit the haul road to be 

used without berms or guardrails being 

provided or maintained on 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 asserts that 

the addition of berms or guardrails to 

the haul road will add a substantial 

hazard to the safety of the haul trucks 

and will expose the operators of the 

trucks to an unnecessary, unsafe 

condition. The petitioner states that: (1) 

Its predecessor, Dravo Soda Springs, has 

previously obtained similar 

modification of 30 CFR 56.9300(a) on 

two previous occasions relating to other 

sections of the same roadway that 

applies to 8.6 miles of haul road covered 

by previous decision and orders as well 

as a new 3.1 mile section of roadway; 

and (2) The modification is needed 

because the mining operation is 

expected to be extended to a new site 

in the same vicinity, known as the 

Blackfoot Bridge Mine. The Record of 

Decision for the new proposed Blackfoot 

Bridge Mine was filed June 17, 2011, 

and will be covered under the same 

mine identification number as the 

Enoch Valley Mine and South 

Rasmussen Mine. The petitioner asserts 

that the use of berms or guardrails on 

the haul road will add a hazard to the 

safety of the haul trucks and will expose 

the operators of the trucks to unsafe 

conditions. 

Dated: August 12, 2011. 

Patricia W. Silvey, 

Certifying Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20978 Filed 8–16–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–43–P 

MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION 

Guidelines for Ensuring and 

Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, 

Utility, and Integrity of Information 

AGENCY: Marine Mammal Commission. 

ACTION: Final guidelines. 

SUMMARY: The Marine Mammal 

Commission adopts these guidelines to 

ensure and maximize the quality, 

objectivity, utility, and integrity of 

information disseminated by the agency 

in accordance with the directive issued 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget (67 FR 8452–8460), pursuant to 

section 515 of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act for 

Fiscal Year 2001. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael L. Gosliner, General Counsel, 

Marine Mammal Commission, 4340 

East-West Highway, Room 700, 

Bethesda MD 20814; telephone: (301) 

504–0087; fax: (301) 504–0099 

Background 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106– 

554) directs the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) to issue governmentwide guidelines that ‘‘provide policy 

and procedural guidance to federal 

agencies for ensuring and maximizing 

the quality, objectivity, utility and 

integrity of information (including 

statistical information) disseminated by 

federal agencies.’’ Pursuant to this 

directive, OMB issued guidelines on 22 

February 2002 (67 FR 8452–8460) that 

direct each federal agency to (1) Issue its 

own guidelines ensuring and 

maximizing the quality, objectivity, 

utility, and integrity of information 

disseminated by the agency; (2) 

establish administrative mechanisms to 

allow affected persons to seek and 

obtain correction of information that 

does not comply with the OMB 

guidelines or the agency’s guidelines, 

and (3) report periodically to the 

director of OMB on the number and 

nature of complaints received by the 

agency regarding the accuracy of 

information disseminated by the agency 

and how such complaints were handled 

by the agency. 

The Marine Mammal Commission 

was established under the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act of 1972 to 

provide independent oversight of the 

marine mammal conservation policies 

and programs being carried out by 

federal agencies. The Commission is 

charged with developing, reviewing, 

and making recommendations on 

domestic and international actions and 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES