10436 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

the Federal Register amend the Health 

Insurance Providers Fee Regulations (26 

CFR part 57) and serve as the text for 

these proposed regulations. 

Special Analyses 

It has been determined that these 

proposed regulations are not a 

significant regulatory action as defined 

in Executive Order 12866, as 

supplemented by Executive Order 

13563. Therefore, a regulatory 

assessment is not required. It also has 

been determined that section 553(b) of 

the Administrative Procedure Act (5 

U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these 

regulations, and because the regulation 

does not impose a collection of 

information on small entities, the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 

chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to 

section 7805(f) of the Code, these 

regulations have been submitted to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration for comment 

on its impact on small business. 

Comments and Requests for a Public 

Hearing 

Before the proposed regulations are 

adopted as final regulations, 

consideration will be given to any 

comments that are submitted timely to 

the IRS as prescribed in this preamble 

under the ADDRESSES heading. The 

Treasury Department and the IRS 

request comments on all aspects of the 

proposed regulations. All comments 

will be available at www.regulations.gov 

or upon request. A public hearing will 

be scheduled if requested in writing by 

any person that timely submits written 

comments. If a public hearing is 

scheduled, notice of the date, time, and 

place for the public hearing will be 

published in the Federal Register. 

Drafting Information 

The principal author of these 

proposed regulations is Rachel S. Smith, 

IRS Office of the Associate Chief 

Counsel (Passthroughs and Special 

Industries). However, other personnel 

from the Treasury Department and the 

IRS participated in their development. 

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 57 

Health insurance, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Proposed Amendments to the 

Regulations 

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 57 is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 57—HEALTH INSURANCE 

PROVIDERS FEE 

■ Paragraph 1. The authority citation 

for part 57 continues to read in part as 

follows: 

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805; sec. 9010, Pub. 

L. 111–148 (124 Stat. 119 (2010)). 

* * * * * 

■ Par. 2. Section 57.2 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(3) and (c)(3)(ii) 

to read as follows: 

§ 57.2 Explanation of terms. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) [The text of proposed § 57.2(b)(3) 

is the same as the text of § 57.2T(b)(3) 

published elsewhere in this issue of the 

Federal Register]. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(ii) [The text of proposed 

§ 57.2(c)(3)(ii) is the same as the text of 

§ 57.2T(c)(3)(ii) published elsewhere in 

this issue of the Federal Register]. 

* * * * * 

■ Par. 3. Section 57.10 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 57.10 Effective/applicability date. 

* * * * * 

(b) [The text of proposed § 57.10(b) is 

the same as the text of § 57.10T(b) 

published elsewhere in this issue of the 

Federal Register]. 

John Dalrymple, 

Deputy Commissioner for Services and 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2015–03945 Filed 2–23–15; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Mine Safety and Health Administration 

30 CFR Part 75 

RIN 1219–AB85 

Request for Information To Improve 

the Health and Safety of Miners and To 

Prevent Accidents in Underground 

Coal Mines 

AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health 

Administration, Labor. 

ACTION: Request for information. 

SUMMARY: The Mine Safety and Health 

Administration (MSHA) is requesting 

information on mine ventilation and 

roof control plans; atmospheric 

monitoring systems and new technology 

for remote monitoring systems; methods 

to suppress the propagation of coal dust 

explosions; and criteria and procedures 

for certification, recertification, and 

decertification of persons qualified to 

conduct mine examinations. These 

issues were raised in reports on the coal 

dust explosion that occurred at the 

Upper Big Branch Mine on April 5, 

2010. After reviewing the 

recommendations in these reports and 

related National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health 

research, MSHA is seeking information 

and data that will help improve the 

health and safety of underground coal 

miners. Submitted information will 

assist MSHA in determining appropriate 

regulatory actions. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

midnight Eastern Standard Time on 

April 27, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by ‘‘RIN 1219–AB85’’, by any 

of the following methods: 

• Federal E-Rulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments for Docket Number MSHA– 

2014–0029. 

• Electronic mail: zzMSHAcomments@dol.gov. Include ‘‘RIN 1219– 

AB85’’ in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Mail: MSHA, Office of Standards, 

Regulations, and Variances, 1100 

Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, 

Arlington, Virginia 22209–3939. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: MSHA, 

Office of Standards, Regulations, and 

Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, 

Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia, 

between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. Sign in at the receptionist’s 

desk on the 21st floor. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the Agency name 

‘‘MSHA’’ and Docket Number ‘‘MSHA– 

2014–0029’’ or ‘‘RIN 1219–AB85.’’ All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http://

www.regulations.gov, under Docket 

Number MSHA–2014–0029, and on 

http://www.msha.gov/

currentcomments.asp, including any 

personal information provided. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http://

www.regulations.gov or http://

www.msha.gov/currentcomments.asp. 

Review comments in person at the 

Office of Standards, Regulations, and 

Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, 

Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia, 

between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

Holidays. Sign in at the receptionist’s 

desk on the 21st floor. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 10437 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sheila A. McConnell, Acting Director, 

Office of Standards, Regulations, and 

Variances, MSHA, at 

mcconnell.sheila.a@dol.gov (email); 

202–693–9440 (voice); or 202–693–9441 

(facsimile). These are not toll-free 

numbers. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Availability of Information 

MSHA maintains a mailing list that 

enables subscribers to receive an email 

notification when the Agency publishes 

rulemaking documents in the Federal 

Register. To subscribe, go to http://

www.msha.gov/subscriptions/

subscribe.aspx. 

I. Background 

On April 5, 2010, a coal dust 

explosion occurred at the Upper Big 

Branch Mine-South (UBB) in Montcoal, 

West Virginia. MSHA initiated an 

accident investigation on April 7, 2010 

under the authority of the Federal Mine 

Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine 

Act). MSHA issued an accident 

investigation report on December 11, 

2011, titled, ‘‘A Report of Investigation, 

Fatal Underground Mine Explosion, 

April 5, 2010, Upper Big Branch MineSouth, Performance Coal Company, 

Montcoal, Raleigh County, West 

Virginia, ID No. 46–08436.’’ 

In addition to MSHA’s accident 

investigation report, MSHA announced 

on May 4, 2010, a separate internal 

review of MSHA’s actions prior to the 

explosion at the Upper Big Branch 

Mine. On March 6, 2012, MSHA issued 

the Internal Review (IR) report of the 

Agency’s enforcement actions titled 

‘‘Internal Review of MSHA’s Actions at 

the Upper Big Branch Mine-South, 

Performance Coal Company, Montcoal, 

Raleigh County, West Virginia’’. The IR 

report compared MSHA’s actions with 

the requirements of the Mine Act and 

MSHA’s standards, regulations, policies, 

and procedures. The report 

recommended changes to regulations 

and standards that would improve the 

health and safety of underground coal 

miners by protecting them from the 

hazards that caused or contributed to 

the explosion. The IR report included 

recommendations to improve 

regulations and standards regarding 

mine ventilation; atmospheric mine 

monitoring systems; rock dusting; and 

certification, re-certification, and 

decertification of persons certified to 

conduct mine examinations in 

underground coal mines. Both the IR 

and Accident Investigation (AI) reports 

recommended that the Assistant 

Secretary consider rulemaking to 

improve mine health and safety. The 

combined recommendations were listed 

in the IR report. 

Following the explosion at UBB, the 

Secretary of Labor, on April 16, 2010, 

requested that NIOSH independently 

assess MSHA’s internal review of its 

enforcement actions at UBB. NIOSH 

identified and appointed a panel to 

conduct an independent assessment (the 

Independent Panel). On March 22, 2012, 

the Independent Panel issued its report 

titled ’’An Independent Panel 

Assessment of an Internal Review of 

MSHA Enforcement Actions at the 

Upper Big Branch Mine South 

Requested by The Honorable Hilda L. 

Solis, Secretary, U.S. Department of 

Labor’’ (IP Assessment). In its report, the 

Independent Panel recommended that 

MSHA address the technical 

deficiencies in current mining practices 

that could compromise safety. 

II. Information Request 

This request for information is based 

on recommendations in the AI, IR, and 

IP Assessment reports. MSHA seeks 

input from industry, labor, and other 

interested parties to assist the Agency in 

determining whether regulatory action 

is needed and, if so, what type of 

regulatory changes would be 

appropriate to improve health and 

safety in underground coal mines. The 

reports on the UBB mine explosion 

identified several areas where 

additional rulemaking could be used to 

improve health and safety in 

underground coal mines. 

In section A, MSHA is requesting 

information on issues related to the 

requirements for developing and 

implementing roof control and mine 

ventilation plans in underground coal 

mines. In section B, MSHA is requesting 

information on issues related to the use, 

calibration, and maintenance of 

atmospheric monitoring systems (AMS) 

and new technology for remote 

monitoring systems. In section C, MSHA 

is requesting information on whether 

specifications contained in the 

definition of rock dust could be changed 

to improve its effectiveness in 

suppressing the propagation of coal dust 

explosions. In section D, the Agency is 

seeking information on whether surface 

moisture should be excluded from the 

determination of total incombustible 

content (TIC) of mixed dust. In section 

E, MSHA is requesting information on 

mine operator experiences with the coal 

dust explosibility meter (CDEM), the 

cleanup program under 30 CFR 75.400– 

2, and rock dusting. MSHA is also 

requesting information on the 

experiences of mine operators who have 

used other methods of testing for the 

explosibility of the dust in their mines. 

In section F, the Agency is seeking 

information on the use of active and 

passive explosion barriers. Finally, in 

section G, MSHA is requesting 

information on criteria and procedures 

for certification, recertification, and 

decertification of certified persons. 

MSHA is particularly interested in 

information regarding persons who 

conduct examinations and tests in 

accordance with MSHA’s ventilation 

standards. 

When responding, please address 

your comments to the topic and 

question number. For example, the 

response to section A. Requirements for 

Developing and Implementing Roof 

Control and Mine Ventilation Plans, 

Question 1, would be identified as 

‘‘A.1.’’ Please explain the rationale 

supporting your views and, where 

possible, include specific examples to 

support your rationale. Provide 

sufficient detail in your responses to 

enable proper Agency review and 

consideration. Identify the information 

on which you rely and include 

applicable experiences, data, models, 

calculations, studies and articles, 

standard professional practices, 

availability of technology, and costs. 

MSHA invites comment in response 

to the specific questions posed below 

and encourages commenters to include 

any related cost and benefit data, and 

any specific issues related to the impact 

on small mines. 

A. Requirements for Developing and 

Implementing Roof Control and Mine 

Ventilation Plans 

MSHA standards require the 

submission and approval of roof control 

and ventilation plans prior to their 

implementation, but do not require the 

operator to designate a person to be 

responsible for the mine’s plans. The IP 

Assessment recommended that mine 

operators hire in-house plan specialists 

who would be certified roof control and 

ventilation officers to oversee plan 

implementation and to coordinate dayto-day actions. 

MSHA is considering changes to 

regulatory requirements to improve roof 

control plans (30 CFR 75.220 and 

75.223) and mine ventilation plans (30 

CFR 75.370 and 75.371). These changes 

could add requirements that would 

provide mine operators, miners, and 

MSHA personnel with increased 

assurance that plans are developed, 

implemented, and maintained according 

to the conditions at the mine. These 

changes could improve roof control and 

ventilation plans, and in conjunction 

with additional requirements for mine 

monitoring, would give mine operators 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
10438 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

information needed to evaluate mine 

conditions. To assist MSHA in 

determining how the ventilation and 

roof control standards could be 

improved, please respond to the 

following questions. 

1. What health and safety benefit 

could result from requiring mine 

operators to designate a mine 

management employee, who is a 

credentialed professional, to be 

responsible for development and 

implementation of approved roof 

control and ventilation plans? 

2. What knowledge, skills, abilities, or 

licensure would this credentialed 

professional need in order to develop, 

implement, and monitor roof control 

and ventilation plans? 

The following recommendations were 

made in MSHA’s reports to improve the 

ventilation in underground coal mines: 

• Consider rulemaking to require that 

the minimum quantity of air be at least 

75,000 cubic feet per minute (cfm) 

reaching the working face of each 

longwall mechanized mining unit 

(MMU). 

• Establish progressive increases in 

the minimum quantity of air according 

to the mine methane liberation rate or 

the established schedule for spot 

inspections at 103(i) mines, such as 15, 

10, and 5-day spot inspections. A 103(i) 

mine is a mine that has experienced, 

within the last 5 years, an ignition or 

explosion of methane or other gases that 

resulted in a fatality or in a permanently 

disabling injury. 

• Consider respirable dust 

compliance as an additional factor for 

increasing the intake air quantity 

approved in the ventilation plan. 

• Consider rulemaking to require the 

use of equipment doors in lieu of 

permanent stoppings, or to control 

ventilation within an air course, subject 

to approval in the mine ventilation plan. 

• To maintain the separation of air 

courses, consider rulemaking to require 

that all equipment doors installed in 

travelways use an interlock system to 

ensure that only one door can be opened 

at a time. 

3. Please comment on the 

recommendation to increase the 

minimum quantity of air. What are the 

advantages, disadvantages, impact on 

miner health and safety, and costs 

associated with an increase in the 

minimum quantity of air for longwall 

mines? How could this minimum 

quantity of air be determined and where 

would it be measured? 

4. What is the most effective way to 

control methane, oxygen, and respirable 

dust levels to assure the health and 

safety of miners? 

5. Please comment on equipment 

doors: Their use, location, approval, 

advantages, disadvantages and impact 

on miner health and safety. Also 

comment on the use of equipment doors 

in travelways, including the use of an 

interlock system. What are the 

advantages, disadvantages, impact on 

miner health and safety, and costs of 

using interlock systems on equipment 

doors? 

B. Atmospheric Monitoring Systems and 

New Technology for Remote Monitoring 

Systems 

Atmospheric Monitoring Systems 

(AMS) are a reliable method for early 

detection of fires along belt conveyors 

and for monitoring several other mineventilation-related parameters. Handheld and machine-mounted gas 

detectors are used extensively 

underground, primarily to monitor 

methane and oxygen concentrations. 

MSHA is exploring the expanded use of 

coordinated monitoring systems to 

monitor methane and carbon monoxide 

levels, air velocities and directions, 

pressure differentials, and other 

parameters at critical locations to help 

mine operators maintain effective 

ventilation and diagnose system failures 

or deficiencies. 

The following recommendations were 

in the IR report: 

• Modify 30 CFR 75.342(a)(2) to 

require additional methane sensors to be 

installed along the longwall face and to 

be tied into an AMS for the mine. These 

sensors should be placed along the face 

at various distances and heights to aid 

in the detection of methane during 

normal mining and in the event of a 

methane inundation. These additional 

sensor locations should be approved by 

the District Manager in the mine 

ventilation plan; and 

• Require an AMS to provide realtime monitoring of methane and carbon 

monoxide levels and airflow direction, 

and to record the quality and quantity 

of air at specific points in the mine. For 

example, monitor where air reversals 

are likely to impact the ventilation 

system, outby loading points, where air 

courses split, and at certain intervals 

along the belt. 

6. Continuous remote monitoring 

systems, such as AMS and tube bundle 

systems, can be used to detect 

unexpected ventilation system changes 

or methane inundations. Please 

comment, including rationale, on 

whether and under what circumstances 

MSHA should require the use of a 

continuous remote monitoring system. 

Please include impact on miner health 

and safety, impact on mining method, 

and any other related impact. What 

would be the costs to add monitoring 

systems or to extend existing systems in 

mines? 

7. Where should continuous remote 

monitoring systems be installed in 

underground coal mines? Please be 

specific as to locations and provide 

rationale, including the impact on miner 

health and safety. 

8. Under what conditions should 

additional gas monitoring sensors and 

sensors that measure air velocity and 

direction be used to monitor the 

longwall face and its tailgate corner to 

minimize accumulations of methane, 

other gases, and dust? Where should 

these sensors be located? 

9. What are the advantages, 

disadvantages, and costs of 

continuously monitoring the 

underground coal mine environment for 

accumulations of gases, air velocity, and 

airflow direction? 

10. How could continuous remote 

monitoring technology be linked to 

communication and tracking technology 

to form an integrated monitoring 

system? Please explain. 

11. How can integrated monitoring 

systems be linked to machine-mounted 

monitors? What are the advantages, 

disadvantages, impact on miner health 

and safety, and costs of integrated 

monitoring systems? 

12. What types of continuous remote 

monitoring systems can continue to 

safely operate and function after an 

explosion, fire, or any other mine 

accident? How long can such systems 

operate after an explosion or fire, since 

power is likely to be deenergized due to 

the emergency? What can be done to 

improve the survivability and reliability 

of continuous remote monitoring 

systems after an explosion or fire? 

13. What types of technologies exist to 

remotely determine methane-air 

mixtures and other gas, dust, and fume 

levels in bleeders and bleederless 

ventilation systems, other than 

traditional AMS and tube-bundle 

systems? Please be specific and note if 

this technology is practical and feasible. 

14. MSHA is aware that fiber optic 

systems are being developed that would 

transmit data to a central location on the 

surface of the mine. Please provide 

system capabilities, specifications, and 

cost information on these systems, as 

well as any other relevant technologies. 

15. If fiber optic technology is capable 

of operation when electrical power is 

deenergized underground, how long can 

such systems remain operable after 

power is deenergized? What is the 

maximum distance such technology is 

capable of transmitting data to the mine 

surface? 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 10439 

16. Please describe how fiber optic 

technology can be used in areas of the 

mine that require the use of permissible 

or intrinsically safe equipment. 

C. Rock Dust 

Mine operators are required to use 

rock dust that meets the definition of 

rock dust in 30 CFR 75.2. This standard 

specifies that rock dust material be 

pulverized limestone, dolomite, 

gypsum, anhydrite, shale, adobe, or 

other inert material, preferably light 

colored. In addition, 100 percent of the 

particles must pass through a sieve 

having 20 meshes per linear inch and 70 

percent or more must pass through a 

sieve having 200 meshes per linear inch. 

The definition specifies that rock dust 

particles, when wetted and dried, will 

not cohere to form a cake that is not 

dispersed into separate particles by a 

light blast of air. In addition, the 

definition specifies that rock dust must 

not contain more than 5 percent 

combustible matter or more than a total 

of 4 percent free and combined silica or, 

where the Secretary finds that such 

silica concentrations are not available, 

must not contain more than 5 percent of 

free and combined silica. 

MSHA has worked cooperatively with 

NIOSH on rock dust research and on the 

development and field testing of the 

CDEM. NIOSH completed development 

of the CDEM and field-tested it with 

MSHA’s assistance beginning in 

December 2009. NIOSH researchers 

published a report, titled ‘‘MSHA CDEM 

Survey and Results,’’ that summarized 

the results of this CDEM field study 

(Harris et al., 2011). MSHA inspectors 

used the NIOSH-developed prototype 

CDEM in conjunction with routine dust 

compliance surveys (conducted under 

30 CFR 75.403) to collect the data 

shown in the report. MSHA inspectors 

also collected rock dust samples as part 

of the CDEM field study. 

NIOSH analyzed the rock dust 

samples and reported in Hazard ID 16— 

Non-Conforming Rock Dust (October 

2011), that the investigation of rock dust 

revealed two significant concerns with 

the supply of rock dust used in U.S. 

mines: Insufficient quantity of particles 

finer than 200 mesh (75 mm) and the 

tendency of rock dust to form a cake 

when wetted and subsequently dried. 

MSHA issued PIB No. P11–50 on 

October 27, 2011, titled ‘‘Rock Dust 

Composition, 30 CFR 75.2’’ that 

reiterated information contained in 

NIOSH Hazard ID 16 (October 2011). 

MSHA stated in PIB No. P11–50 that the 

particle size issue and the caking issue 

indicate a possible lack of product 

quality control. 

To assist MSHA in making 

determinations with respect to rock 

dust, please respond to the following 

questions. 

17. What specific tests should be 

performed to monitor the quality of rock 

dust to assure that the rock dust will 

effectively suppress an explosion in the 

mine environment? 

18. What materials produce the most 

effective rock dust? 

19. What are the advantages, 

disadvantages, impact on miner health 

and safety, and costs of limiting rock 

dust to light-colored inert materials, 

such as limestone and dolomite? 

20. Please provide information on the 

types of impurities that could degrade 

rock dust performance. What tests or 

methods can be used to detect the 

presence of impurities? 

21. What particle size distribution for 

rock dust would most effectively inert 

coal dust? What should be the 

maximum particle size? What should be 

the minimum particle size? Please 

explain and provide the rationale for 

your answer. 

22. Determination of fine particle size 

of rock dust by sieving may be 

complicated by static agglomeration. 

What test methods should be used to 

measure the size distribution of rock 

dust to ensure consistent quality? What 

are the advantages, disadvantages, and 

costs of these test methods? 

23. How can the potential of rock dust 

to cake be minimized? Are objective and 

practical tests available to determine the 

caking potential of rock dust? If so, 

please explain and provide 

documentation. 

24. Please provide information on 

how fine particles (less than 10 mm) may 

increase the likelihood of caking in rock 

dust. 

25. Can rock dust be treated with 

additives that would reduce caking? 

Would the additive enhance or diminish 

the ability of the rock dust particles to 

quench a coal dust explosion and, 

therefore, impact the effectiveness of the 

rock dust to inert coal dust? Please 

provide information on the chemical 

composition of any suggested additives, 

the quantities needed, costs, and 

potential impact on miner health and 

safety. If available, what areas of an 

underground coal mine would need to 

be treated with non-caking rock dust? 

Please explain and provide the rationale 

for your answer. 

26. Applied rock dust must be 

dispersible to inert an explosion. What 

in-mine tests can be used to determine 

the caking resistance (i.e., dispersibility) 

of applied rock dust? 

27. How does combustible material 

degrade the performance of rock dust? 

How should MSHA modify the existing 

specification in the definition of rock 

dust? Please explain and provide 

documentation. 

28. How should MSHA modify the 

existing requirement for free and 

combined silica in the definition of rock 

dust? Please explain and provide 

documentation. 

29. How can the respirable particle 

size fraction of rock dust, i.e., less than 

10 mm, be limited, while maintaining 

the effectiveness of the dust to suppress 

the propagation of a coal dust 

explosion? Please explain. 

D. Surface Moisture and Total 

Incombustible Content 

The IR report recommended that 

MSHA amend existing standards to 

exclude surface moisture from the 

determination of TIC. (See 30 CFR 

75.403 and 75.403–1). In addition, 

Harris et al. (2010) recommended that 

surface moisture be excluded from the 

measurement of TIC due to the potential 

variability in moisture content of the 

combined coal dust, rock dust, and 

other dust within a mine. 

30. What are the advantages, 

disadvantages, and costs of excluding 

surface moisture from the definition of 

TIC? 

E. Operator Experiences With the Coal 

Dust Explosibility Meter (CDEM), 

Cleanup Program, and Rock Dusting 

MSHA has worked cooperatively with 

NIOSH on the development and field 

testing of the CDEM. NIOSH completed 

development of the CDEM and fieldtested it with MSHA’s assistance 

beginning in December 2009. NIOSH 

researchers published a report, titled 

‘‘MSHA CDEM Survey and Results,’’ 

that summarized the results of this 

CDEM field study (Harris et al., 2011). 

MSHA inspectors used the NIOSHdeveloped prototype CDEM in 

conjunction with routine dust 

compliance surveys (conducted under 

30 CFR 75.403) to collect the data 

shown in the report. 

MSHA stated in the final rule on 

‘‘Maintenance of Incombustible Content 

of Rock Dust in Underground Coal 

Mines,’’ published on June 21, 2011 (76 

FR 35968, at 35972), that— 

. . . [t]he CDEM is intended to be used by 

mine operators and MSHA as a screening tool 

inside the mine to assess the explosion 

hazard potential in real time and take 

prudent actions to mitigate the hazard. The 

CDEM is not intended to replace the current 

MSHA laboratory analysis of coal mine dust 

samples for incombustible content, but to 

serve as a supplemental device for enhancing 

mine safety through improved rock dusting 

practices. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
10440 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

In addition, the IR report 

recommended that MSHA should 

consider rulemaking to require mine 

operators to regularly determine the 

adequacy of rock dusting using a 

method approved by the Secretary. The 

IR report stated that this could be 

achieved by requiring mine operators to 

sample mine dust for analysis or 

conduct CDEM testing at sufficient 

locations and intervals to determine if 

any area of the mine needs re-dusting. 

The IR report further recommended that 

the rule should consider requirements 

for certification, recordkeeping 

(including a map of sample locations), 

and corrective actions similar to 

examination standards. 

In light of this recommendation, 

MSHA requests the following 

information from mine operators: 

31. What experience do you have with 

CDEMs, including use, maintenance, 

calibration, and costs? Based on your 

experience, how can CDEMs be used to 

help prevent coal dust explosions? What 

benefits have you experienced? What 

limitations have you encountered? 

32. To what extent are mine operators 

using other methods to assess 

explosibility (i.e., laboratory TIC or 

volumeter testing)? How long does it 

take to get results from these test 

methods? 

33. What are the advantages, 

disadvantages, and costs of these 

methods? What are the benefits and 

limitations of each of these methods? 

34. How often should mine operators 

test for explosibility? Where should 

mine operators test for explosibility in 

mines? 

35. How should mine operators assess 

their rock dust applications? 

36. What records should mine 

operators be required to retain to verify 

that they have tested for explosibility? 

The IR report also recommended that 

MSHA consider rulemaking to revise 30 

CFR 75.402 to require the use of: 

• High-pressure rock-dusting 

machines to continuously apply rock 

dust into the air stream at the tailgate 

end of the longwall face whenever 

cutting coal; and 

• Rock-dusting machines to regularly 

apply rock dust at the outby edges of 

active pillar lines on retreating 

continuous mining machine sections 

and at approaches to inaccessible areas 

downwind of coal dust generating 

sources. 

In light of these recommendations, 

MSHA requests the following 

information from mine operators: 

37. In what additional areas of 

underground coal mines should the 

operator apply rock dust continuously 

or regularly? 

38. What conditions necessitate the 

reapplication of rock dust to previously 

treated areas? 

F. Active and Passive Explosion Barriers 

Used To Suppress the Propagation of a 

Coal Dust Explosion 

The IP Assessment recommended that 

MSHA determine the relative merits of 

applying passive or active explosion 

barriers in specific circumstances. 

Explosion barriers remove heat from an 

explosion by engulfing the area of the 

barrier in an incombustible cloud of 

inert material like rock dust or water. 

These barriers are not used in 

underground coal mines in the United 

States. However, other countries allow 

the use of explosion barriers in 

underground coal mines. 

These explosion barriers are designed 

to be activated by the pressure wave in 

front of a coal dust explosion. The 

barriers flood the area with either water 

or rock dust which renders any 

suspended coal dust inert (Cain 2003). 

Passive barriers quench coal dust 

explosions when the explosion shock 

wave traveling in advance of the 

explosion flame disturbs the barrier. 

Active barriers contain sensors that 

detect the approach of the flame and 

trigger a positive pressure system to 

flood the area with water or rock dust 

to quench the flame (Cain 2003). 

39. What types of active or passive 

explosion barriers could be used and 

where could they be used in 

underground coal mines? How does the 

movement of equipment and personnel 

affect the effectiveness of explosion 

barriers to quench a coal dust 

explosion? 

40. What are the advantages, 

disadvantages, impact on miner health 

and safety, and costs of installing and 

maintaining active and passive 

explosion barriers? 

G. Certification, Recertification, and 

Decertification of Persons Certified To 

Conduct Mine Examinations in 

Underground Coal Mines 

MSHA’s standards at 30 CFR 75.360, 

75.361, 75.362, and 75.364 require that 

preshift, on-shift, supplemental, and 

weekly examinations be performed by 

persons who have been certified by 

MSHA or a State. A certified person, 

defined in 30 CFR 75.2 and addressed 

in 30 CFR 75.100, is a person who has 

been certified as a mine foreman (mine 

manager), an assistant mine foreman 

(section foreman), or a preshift examiner 

(mine examiner). Under 30 CFR 75.100, 

a person can become certified through 

an MSHA-administered program or a 

State-administered program. A person 

must satisfy the criteria specified in 30 

CFR 75.100 to obtain an MSHA 

certification. 

Most State certifications are 

conditional on age and mining 

experience, specified training, and an 

examination. The criteria for 

certification and the types of 

certification, however, vary across 

States. The IR report recommended that 

MSHA supplement the recent 

rulemaking on Examinations of Work 

Areas in Underground Coal Mines, 

published on April 6, 2012 (77 FR 

20700), as follows: 

. . . to require federal certification 

requirements, procedures, and time limits for 

re-certification of certified persons (including 

mine superintendents). . . . [and] provide 

procedures and criteria for the revocation of 

certifications (decertification of certified 

persons) for certain violations, including 

knowing and willful violations, advance 

notice of inspections, making any false 

statement, and smoking or carrying smoking 

materials. 

In response to these 

recommendations, MSHA is considering 

changing existing certification criteria 

and establishing criteria and procedures 

for renewal, decertification, and 

recertification of persons certified under 

30 CFR 75.100 to conduct mine 

examinations in underground coal 

mines. 

If your State administers a program to 

certify persons to conduct mine 

examinations in underground coal 

mines, please respond to the following 

questions: 

41. What criteria and procedures does 

the State use for certifying persons to 

perform mine examinations? 

42. If the State requires that certified 

persons renew their certifications, what 

procedures are used for a renewal of a 

certification? Does the State recognize or 

accept other State certifications? Please 

provide examples. 

43. If the State also has a 

decertification program, what criteria 

and procedures are used to suspend or 

decertify a person’s certification? What 

procedures are used to recertify a person 

after a suspension or decertification? 

44. How does the State notify mine 

operators and other States that it has 

decertified or recertified a person to 

conduct mine examinations? What types 

of actions are taken by other States 

based on your State’s decertification? 

In addition, MSHA requests the 

following information: 

45. What criteria should a miner meet 

to be a certified person to conduct mine 

examinations under 30 CFR 75.100, e.g., 

minimum age, years of experience, 

education, knowledge, training, and 

other skills? 

46. What criteria and procedures 

would you recommend for the 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 10441 

suspension or decertification 

(revocation) of a person’s certification? 

What criteria and procedures would you 

recommend for recertification? Please, 

include time frames for recertification. 

47. What are the advantages, 

disadvantages, and administrative costs 

of having uniform criteria and 

procedures for the certification, 

decertification, and recertification of 

persons to conduct mine examinations 

in underground coal mines? 

III. Request for Information 

Please provide any other data or 

information that you think would be 

useful to MSHA in evaluating the 

effectiveness of its regulations and 

standards as they relate to the 

recommendations included in the IR 

and AI reports and those contained in 

the IP Assessment report. 

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 75 

Coal mines, Mine safety and health, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Safety, Underground 

mining. 

Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811. 

Dated: February 23, 2015. 

Joseph A. Main, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety 

and Health. 

[FR Doc. 2015–03982 Filed 2–25–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–43–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2010–0611; FRL 9923–23– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Texas; Revision 

to Control of Air Pollution From 

Volatile Organic Compounds; 

Alternative Leak Detection and Repair 

Work Practice 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision for control of volatile organic 

compound (VOC) emissions from 

fugitive sources that was submitted to 

EPA on July 2, 2010. The SIP revision 

allows for a voluntary alternative work 

practice to detect fugitive emission leaks 

using optical gas imaging instruments 

under the EPA federal Leak Detection 

and Repair (LDAR) requirements. The 

EPA adopted through rulemaking the 

use of this voluntary alternative work 

practice for federal leak detection and 

repair of fugitive emissions sources. 

EPA has evaluated the SIP revision and 

determined that it is consistent with the 

federal LDAR regulations. EPA is 

approving this action under Section 110 

of the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Written comments should be 

received on or before March 30, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to 

Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning 

Section (6PD–L), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

Comments may also be submitted 

electronically or through hand delivery/ 

courier by following the detailed 

instructions in the ADDRESSES section of 

the direct final rule located in the rules 

section of this Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Huser, (214) 665–7347, 

huser.jennifer@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

final rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP submittal as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no relevant adverse comments 

are received in response to this action 

no further activity is contemplated. If 

EPA receives relevant adverse 

comments, the direct final rule will be 

withdrawn and all public comments 

received will be addressed in a 

subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this action 

should do so at this time. 

For additional information, see the 

direct final rule which is located in the 

rules section of this Federal Register. 

Dated: February 9, 2015. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2015–03587 Filed 2–25–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 62 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0554; FRL–9923–34– 

Region 5] 

Approval of Other Solid Waste 

Incinerator Units State Plan for 

Designated Facilities and Pollutants: 

Indiana 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve, 

through direct final procedure, Indiana’s 

State Plan to control air pollutants from 

‘‘Other Solid Waste Incineration’’ 

(OSWI) Units. The Indiana Department 

of Environmental Management 

submitted the State Plan on November 

27, 2007, following the required public 

process. The State Plan is consistent 

with Emission Guidelines promulgated 

by EPA on December 16, 2005. This 

approval means that EPA finds that the 

State Plan meets applicable Clean Air 

Act requirements for OSWI units for 

which construction commenced on or 

before December 4, 2004. Once effective, 

this approval also makes the State Plan 

Federally enforceable. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 30, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2009–0554, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: nash.carlton @epa.gov. 

• Fax: (312) 692–2543. 

• Mail: Carlton T. Nash, Chief, 

Integrated Air Toxics Section, Air 

Toxics and Assessment Branch (AT– 

18J), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

• Hand Delivery: Carlton T. Nash, 

Chief, Integrated Air Toxics Section, Air 

Toxics and Assessment Branch (AT– 

18J), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Regional 

Office normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal 

holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS