[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 38 (Thursday, February 26, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10436-10441]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03982]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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:
    <bullet> Federal E-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments for Docket 
Number MSHA-2014-0029.
    <bullet> Electronic mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a3d9d9eef0ebe28ec0cccecec6cdd7d0e3c7cccf8dc4ccd5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="314b4b7c6279701c525e5c5c545f454271555e5d1f565e47">[email protected]</span></a>. Include ``RIN 
1219-AB85'' in the subject line of the message.
    <bullet> Mail: MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and 
Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia 22209-
3939.
    <bullet> 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.

[[Page 10437]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sheila A. McConnell, Acting Director, 
Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ea8789898584848f8686c499828f83868bc48baa8e8586c48d859c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="78151b1b1716161d1414560b101d1114195619381c1714561f170e">[email protected]</span></a> (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 Mine-South, 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 day-to-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

[[Page 10438]]

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:
    <bullet> 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).
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> Consider respirable dust compliance as an additional 
factor for increasing the intake air quantity approved in the 
ventilation plan.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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 mine-ventilation-related parameters. Hand-held 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:
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> Require an AMS to provide real-time 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?

[[Page 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 [mu]m) 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 
[mu]m) 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 [mu]m, 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 
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 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.


[[Page 10440]]


    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:
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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

[[Page 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>