Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 57811 

§ 50.11 Investigation. 

(a) After notification of an accident by an 

operator, the MSHA District Manager will 

promptly decide whether to conduct an 

accident investigation and will promptly 

inform the operator of his decision. If MSHA 

decides to investigate an accident, it will 

initiate the investigation within 24 hours of 

notification. 

(b) Each operator of a mine shall 

investigate each accident and each 

occupational injury at the mine. Each 

operator of a mine shall develop a report of 

each investigation. No operator may use 

Form 7000–1 as a report, except that an 

operator of a mine at which fewer than 

twenty miners are employed may, with 

respect to that mine, use Form 7000–1 as an 

investigation report respecting an 

occupational injury not related to an 

accident. No operator may use an 

investigation or an investigation report 

conducted or prepared by MSHA to comply 

with this paragraph. An operator shall submit 

a copy of any investigation report to MSHA 

at its request. Each report prepared by the 

operator shall include, 

(1) The date and hour of occurrence; 

(2) The date the investigation began; 

(3) The names of individuals participating 

in the investigation; 

(4) A description of the site; 

(5) An explanation of the accident or 

injury, including a description of any 

equipment involved and relevant events 

before and after the occurrence, and any 

explanation of the cause of any injury, the 

cause of any accident or cause of any other 

event which caused an injury; 

(6) The name, occupation, and experience 

of any miner involved; 

(7) A sketch, where pertinent, including 

dimensions depicting the occurrence; 

(8) A description of steps taken to prevent 

a similar occurrence in the future; and 

(9) Identification of any report submitted 

under § 50.20 of this part. 

D2. What type of alcohol and other 

drug use inquiries should be made after 

accidents (e.g., questioning, drug 

testing)? 

D3. What degree of accident or injury 

should trigger an inquiry (all, fatal, losttime, others)? 

D4. How should the information 

collected in the inquiry be used, and by 

whom? 

D5. What actions should be required 

if it is determined that the use of alcohol 

or other drugs was a contributing factor 

or cause of the accident? 

E. Drug-Free Workplace Programs 

Although our regulations currently do 

not require programs to address the 

safety hazards that the presence of 

alcohol and other drugs in the 

workplace may cause, some mine 

operators have voluntarily put these 

programs in place. Typically, such a 

program, often called a drug-free 

workplace program, includes at least 

one of the following five components: 

drug-free workplace policy; employee 

education; supervisory training; drug 

testing; and an employee assistance 

program. Please provide examples and 

data to support your answers to the 

following questions: 

E1. Do you have a drug-free 

workplace program at your mine, or 

have you instituted any of the above 

mentioned components, even if not 

referred to as a drug-free workplace? 

Please provide a copy of your program 

policy and procedures. Is this program 

part of a broader program? 

E2. If you have a drug-free workplace 

policy or program: 

E2–a. What prompted you to initiate 

your program? 

E2–b. What components does your 

program have? 

E2–c. Which of your program’s 

components do you feel are most critical 

and/or effective, and why? 

E2–d. Have you been able to 

document any improvement as a result 

of your program? 

E2–e. Please provide any data that 

demonstrate the extent of the problem at 

your mine and the effectiveness of your 

program in improving safety at your 

mine. 

E2–f. What issues/problems have you 

encountered in implementing your 

program and how have you resolved 

them? 

E2–g. What actions are taken for 

miners who violate the terms of the 

policy? 

E3. If you previously had a drug-free 

workplace program, what did it 

include? Why was it discontinued? 

E4. If you conduct supervisory 

training on drug issues, how are 

supervisors taught to recognize and 

handle employees who may have 

alcohol and/or other drug problems? 

Please elaborate on how supervisors 

make these determinations. 

E5. Do you have an employee 

assistance program, and if so, how many 

employees have accessed the EAP for 

problems related to alcohol and drug 

use? How many of these employees 

have had their problems resolved 

successfully? 

F. Costs and Benefits 

We are particularly interested in the 

costs and benefits you have experienced 

in planning and implementing a drugfree workplace program. In addition, we 

are interested in knowing what you 

estimate the costs to be of designing and 

implementing other elements of a drugfree workplace program. Please provide 

examples and data to support your 

answers to the following questions: 

F1. What costs have you incurred 

from your efforts to reduce or eliminate 

drugs or alcohol from the workplace? 

Please provide the costs by type (e.g., 

personnel, training, equipment). 

F2–a. What costs would be associated 

with having a drug-free workplace 

program (e.g., program implementation, 

training, drug testing, EAP, restricted 

work programs, personnel effects)? 

F2–b. Would these costs be borne 

disproportionately by small mines? If 

so, please explain how and by how 

much the costs would vary. 

F3. What benefits have you derived 

from your efforts to reduce or eliminate 

alcohol or drugs from the workplace 

(e.g., lower workers compensation costs, 

reduced absenteeism, employee morale, 

reduction in turnover, accident and 

injury reduction and related cost 

savings)? 

Dated: September 29, 2005. 

David G. Dye, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety 

and Health. 

[FR Doc. 05–19846 Filed 9–29–05; 3:11 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4510–43–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 62 

[R06–OAR–2004–NM–0002; FRL–7979–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Plans for Designated Facilities and 

Pollutants: Bernalillo County, NM; 

Negative Declaration 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving three 

negative declarations submitted by the 

City of Albuquerque (Bernalillo County) 

certifying that there are no existing 

sources subject to the requirements of 

sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air 

Act under their jurisdiction. These three 

negative declarations are for Sulfuric 

Acid Mist Emissions from Sulfuric Acid 

Plants, Fluoride Emissions from 

Phosphate Fertilizer Plants, and Total 

Reduced Sulfur Emissions from Kraft 

Pulp Mills. This is a direct final rule 

action without prior notice and 

comment because this action is deemed 

noncontroversial. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by November 3, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted electronically, by mail, by 

facsimile, or through hand delivery/ 

courier by following the detailed 

instructions provided under the ‘‘Public 

Participation’’ heading in the 

Supplemental Information section of 

57812 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

direct final rule located in the ‘‘Rules 

and Regulations’’ section of this Federal 

Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Kenneth W. Boyce, Air Planning 

Section, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2833, at 

(214) 665–7259 or 

boyce.kenneth@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this 

Federal Register, EPA is approving 

negative declarations submitted by the 

City of Albuquerque Environmental 

Health Department certifying that there 

are no existing sulfuric acid mist 

emissions from sulfuric acid plants, no 

existing fluoride emissions from 

phosphate fertilizer plants and no 

existing total reduced sulfur emissions 

from kraft pulp mills, under its 

jurisdiction in the City of Albuquerque 

and Bernalillo County, New Mexico 

(excluding tribal lands). These negative 

declarations meets the requirements of 

40 CFR 62.06. EPA is approving sections 

111(d)/129 State Plans as a direct final 

rule without prior proposal because 

EPA views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. The EPA has explained its 

reasons for this approval in the 

preamble to the direct final rule. If EPA 

receives no relevant adverse comments, 

EPA will not take further action on this 

proposed rule. If EPA receives relevant 

adverse comments, the direct final rule 

will be withdrawn and all public 

comments received will be addressed in 

a subsequent direct final rule based on 

this proposed rule. EPA will not 

institute a second comment period. Any 

parties interested in commenting must 

do so at this time. Please note that if 

EPA receives adverse comment on an 

amendment, paragraph, or section of 

this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

EPA may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 

For additional information, see the 

direct final rule located in the ‘‘Rules 

and Regulations’’ section of this Federal 

Register. 

Dated: September 19, 2005. 

Lawrence E. Starfield, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 05–19877 Filed 10–3–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 62 

[R06–OAR–2005–OK–0004; FRL–7979–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Plans for Designated Facilities and 

Pollutants: Oklahoma; Plan for 

Controlling Emissions From 

Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste 

Incineration Units 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

the ‘‘State Plan’’ submitted by the state 

of Oklahoma on June 29, 2005, to fulfill 

the requirement of sections 111(d)/129 

of the Clean Air Act for commercial and 

industrial solid waste incineration 

(CISWI) units. Specifically, the State 

Plan that EPA is proposing to approve, 

establishes emission limits for organics, 

carbon monoxide, metals, acid gases 

and particulate matter and compliance 

schedules for the existing CISWI units 

located in Oklahoma which will reduce 

the designated pollutants. The State 

Plan establishes monitoring, operating, 

and recordkeeping requirements for 

commercial and industrial solid waste 

incinerator (CISWI) units for which 

construction commenced on or before 

November 30, 1999. In the ‘‘Rules and 

Regulations’’ section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving Oklahoma’s 

State Plan 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 EPA receives no adverse 

comments, EPA will not take further 

action on this proposed rule. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, EPA will 

withdraw the direct final rule and it will 

not take effect. EPA will address all 

public comments in a subsequent final 

rule based on this proposed rule. The 

EPA will not institute a second 

comment period on this action. Any 

parties interested in commenting on this 

action should do so at this time. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by November 3, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to 

Mr. Thomas Diggs, Chief, Air Planning 

Section (6PD–L), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

Comments may be submitted 

electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or 

through hand delivery/courier by 

following the detailed instructions 

provided under the ‘‘Public 

Participation’’ heading in the 

Supplemental Information section of 

direct final rule located in the ‘‘Rules 

and Regulations’’ section of this Federal 

Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Kenneth W. Boyce, Air Planning 

Section, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2833, at 

(214) 665–7259 or 

boyce.kenneth@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this 

Federal Register, EPA is approving 

Oklahoma’s sections 111(d)/129 State 

Plan as a direct final rule without prior 

proposal because EPA views this as a 

noncontroversial submittal and 

anticipates no adverse comment. The 

EPA has explained its reasons for this 

approval in the preamble to the direct 

final rule. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this action rule, 

no further activity is contemplated. If 

EPA receives no relevant adverse 

comment, EPA will not take further 

action on this proposed rule. 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 

must do so at this time. Please note that 

if EPA receives adverse comment on an 

amendment, paragraph, or section of 

this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

EPA may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 

For additional information, see the 

direct final rule located in the ‘‘Rules 

and Regulations’’ section of this Federal 

Register. 

Dated: September 19, 2005. 

Lawrence E. Starfield, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 05–19837 Filed 10–3–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P