Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 1997 / Proposed Rules 64789

while the airplane is in flight, accomplish the

following:

(a) Within 30 days after the effective date

of this AD, revise the Limitations Section of

the FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual

(AFM) to include the following statements.

This action may be accomplished by

inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM.

‘‘Positioning of power levers below the

flight idle stop while the airplane is in flight

is prohibited. Such positioning may lead to

loss of airplane control or may result in an

overspeed condition and consequent loss of

engine power.’’

(b) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators

shall submit their requests through an

appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, Standardization

Branch, ANM–113.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Standardization Branch,

ANM–113.

(c) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

December 2, 1997.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–32120 Filed 12–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mine Safety and Health Administration

30 CFR Parts 57 and 75

RIN 1219–AA94

Safety Standards for the Use of RoofBolting Machines in Underground

Mines

AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health

Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking.

SUMMARY: Recent accidents in

underground coal mines involving roofbolting machines indicate the need to

modify the design of such machines and

require additional safety features. The

accident history involving use of these

machines prompted the Mine Safety and

Health Administration (MSHA) to

evaluate roof-bolting machines currently

in use, primarily focusing on potential

hazards to the machine operators during

the drilling and roof-bolt installation

procedures. As a result of the evaluation

of accidents, MSHA is in the early

stages of establishing design criteria and

operating procedures for roof-bolting

machines in underground mines. This

notice seeks to obtain additional

information and data on machine

design, operating procedures, and

miners’ experiences with roof-bolting

machines.

DATES: Submit comments on or before

February 9, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the

Office of Standards, Regulations, and

Variances, MSHA, Room 631, 4015

Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia

22203. Commenters are encouraged to

submit comments on a computer disk or

via e-mail to psilvey@msha.gov along

with an original hard copy or via telefax

to: 703–235–5551.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Patricia W. Silvey, Director, Office of

Standards, Regulations, and Variances,

703–235–1910.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

An estimated 2,500 roof-bolting

machines are currently in use at

underground coal, potash, trona, and

salt mines in the United States. The

machines are used to install many types

of roof bolts and other support materials

into the mine roof.

Between January 1984 and April

1994, 16 fatal accidents occurred

involving the operation and

maintenance of roof-bolting machines.

In a six-week period in early 1994, three

operators of roof-bolting machines were

killed while operating the machines in

coal mines. Two were crushed between

the drill head and machine frame while

bolting the rib, and the other was

crushed between the drill head boom

and canopy when the fast-feed boom lift

lever was inadvertently activated.

Responding to these accidents, on April

4, 1994, MSHA formed and chaired the

Roof-Bolting-Machine Committee

(committee) with representatives from

the U.S. Bureau of Mines and the West

Virginia Office of Miners’ Health,

Safety, and Training, to review accident

data, to visit mines to observe roofbolting practices, and to interview

miners. Additionally, the committee

met with four major roof-bolting

machine manufacturers, who provided

data and technical information on

machine design and function.

The study focused on boom and masttype roof-bolting machines and did not

include continuous mining machines

with integral bolters. Primarily, the

committee examined the potential

hazards to the roof-bolter operators

during the drilling and roof-bolt

installation procedures.

Following this study, the committee

issued a Report of Findings (Report) on

roof bolter safety on July 8, 1994

outlining problems and potential

solutions for reducing roof-bolting

accidents. These findings are

summarized below. Copies of the Report

are available to the public at all MSHA

district offices; from MSHA’s Office of

Standards, Regulations, and Variances,

by calling 703–235–1910; and through

MSHA’s Home Page on the Internet, at

http://www.msha.gov.

The committee was reconvened on

October 21, 1996. The purpose of this

meeting was to determine whether any

new technology or design changes had

occurred beyond those included in the

committee’s 1994 Report. The

committee identified one design change,

a new valve developed by a

manufacturer to prevent its two-handed,

fast-feed valve from being bypassed.

The committee also reviewed MSHA

accident data for the period from April

1994 through December 1996. (The

report covered January 1984 through

March 25, 1994.) Although there have

been numerous accidents and injuries,

there have been no fatalities related to

the operation of roof-bolting machines

in either coal or metal and nonmetal

mines since the issuance of the roofbolter safety report. An analysis of the

data confirmed that accidents directly

related to the operation and

maintenance of roof-bolting machines

continue to occur.

II. Findings

The committee identified several roofbolting-related problem areas which

may have contributed to or caused the

accidents. These included: (1)

inadvertent actuation of controls,

particularly the drill-head, fast-feed

control lever, which contributed to

approximately 50 percent of the fatal

accidents; (2) work position location; (3)

retrieval of drill steel; (4) resin insertion;

(5) location of controls; and (6) control

malfunction. In addition, the committee

identified various other areas for

improvement in future roof-bolting

machine design.

III. General Issues

The committee developed ten

possible solutions to address problems

with existing roof-bolting machines. The

solutions are as follows:

1. Installing two-handed, fast-feed

controls that prevent actuation of drillhead feed controls while the machine

operators are positioned in pinch-point

areas.
64790 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 1997 / Proposed Rules

2. Installing a drill-head raise shutoff.

This device would be installed in the

drill-head raise pinch point and would

immediately stop the hydraulic oil flow

to the drill-head feed cylinder, thus

preventing the feed cylinder from being

raised and accidentally injuring the

operator.

3. Installing auxiliary controls for the

canopy raise/lower and boom swing

functions to eliminate the pinch point

where operators have been injured by

the swinging boom.

4. Installing control guarding or

double-acting fast-feed controls, or both,

to prevent inadvertent activation.

5. Providing visual identification of

pinch-point areas to alert the operator of

the danger area.

6. Installing self-centering controls to

prevent continued machine movement

when the control lever is released.

7. Securing the rotating drill steels or

wrench to prevent the operator from

becoming entangled in these moving

machine components.

8. Installing insertion/retrieval

devices (resin insertion tools or drill

steel retrieval) to eliminate the need for

the operator to extend his body into a

pinch point or climb onto the boom.

9. Standardizing location of controls

to prevent inadvertent actuation of

controls due to different roof-bolting

machine control layouts.

10. Conducting a pre-operational

inspection of machine controls to detect

malfunctions prior to operation.

These possible solutions are intended

to address the problems with roofbolting machines and to prevent

accidents. MSHA requests miners, mine

operators, manufacturers, and other

interested parties to comment on the

qualitative and quantitative potential

benefits and costs of compliance

associated with adoption of these

solutions, and any alternatives to these

solutions.

Although MSHA is considering

development of a proposed rule to

address the hazards associated with

roof-bolting machines, the Agency also

solicits comment from the public on

alternatives, other than rulemaking, to

address safety hazards on roof-bolting

machines used in the mines today.

IV. Specific Issues

Because a roof-bolting machine

standard would apply to both coal and

metal and nonmetal mining industries,

commenters should provide specific

justification for their positions based on

sound engineering, work practices, and

mining conditions. MSHA requests

comment on the technological and

economical feasibility and benefits of

the solutions suggested in the Report of

Findings and in this notice. Specifically,

MSHA seeks input on the following

issues: the current availability of

technology to retrofit existing machines

with two-handed fast-feed controls,

double-acting fast-feed controls, control

guarding, visual identification markers

to alert the operator of the pinch point

area, self-centering controls, or

insertion/retrieval devices; the impact

on the design and operation of existing

machines if retrofitting were to be

required; the impact of available

technology on newly-purchased

machines; the costs to manufacturers

and mine operators of available

technology; and any other information

that is relevant to the findings in the

Report. Commenters are encouraged to

provide information specific to their

mining conditions.

V. Impact

Executive Order 12866 requires that

regulatory agencies assess both the costs

and benefits of intended regulations,

and propose regulations on the basis

that the benefits justify the costs.

Regulatory agencies also are required to

base decisions on the best reasonably

obtainable scientific, technical,

economic, and other data and

information concerning the need for and

the consequences of the proposed

regulations.

MSHA is in the early stages of

developing a proposed rule. The Agency

anticipates that the benefit of a safety

standard addressing design criteria and

operating procedures for the use of roofbolting machines in underground mines

would be the prevention of fatalities and

injuries which occur when these

machines are operated.

VI. Public Participation

MSHA requests comments on the

specific issues addressed in this notice

as well as those addressed in the Report

of Findings. Interested parties are

particularly encouraged to be as specific

as possible in addressing each of

MSHA’s possible solutions and in

suggesting alternatives to these

solutions. MSHA also requests that

commenters include specific examples

and cost estimates to support their

rationale to assist the Agency in

evaluating and analyzing their

comments.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Parts 57 and

75

Mine safety and health, Underground

mining.

Dated: December 3, 1997.

J. Davitt McAteer,

Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and

Health.

[FR Doc. 97–32203 Filed 12–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–43–P

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS

38 CFR Part 20

RIN 2900–AI98

Board of Veterans’ Appeals: Rules of

Practice—Attorney Fee Matters

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans

Affairs (VA) proposes to amend the

Rules of Practice of the Board of

Veterans’ Appeals (Board) to

discontinue VA’s paying attorney fees

from past-due benefits, establish

safeguards in the case of ‘‘disinterested

third-party’’ payers, and simplify certain

notice procedures. We believe that

discontinuance of VA’s paying attorney

fees from past-due benefits is warranted

because the administrative resources

that it consumes would be better spent

in activities more directly beneficial to

veterans; the establishment of

safeguards regarding ‘‘disinterested

third-party’’ payers will help prevent

circumvention of the law restricting

payments by claimants and appellants;

and simplified notice procedures

relating to motions to review attorneyfee agreements or to challenge expense

charges are adequate for establishing

proof of service.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before February 9, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver written

comments to: Director, Office of

Regulations Management (02D),

Department of Veterans Affairs, 810

Vermont Ave., NW., Room 1154,

Washington, DC 20420. Comments

should indicate that they are submitted

in response to ‘‘RIN 2900–AI98’’. All

written comments will be available for

public inspection at the above address

in the Office of Regulations

Management, Room 1158, between the

hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday (except

holidays).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven L. Keller, Chief Counsel, Board

of Veterans’ Appeals, Department of

Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue,

NW., Washington, DC 20420 (202–565–

5978).