2188 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Mine Safety and Health Administration 

30 CFR Part 75 

[Docket No. MSHA–2010–0001] 

RIN 1219–AB65 

Proximity Detection Systems for 

Continuous Mining Machines in 

Underground Coal Mines 

AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health 

Administration, Labor. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Mine Safety and Health 

Administration’s (MSHA) final rule 

requires underground coal mine 

operators to equip continuous mining 

machines, except full-face continuous 

mining machines, with proximity 

detection systems. Miners working near 

continuous mining machines face 

pinning, crushing, and striking hazards 

that result in accidents involving lifethreatening injuries and death. This 

final rule strengthens protections for 

miners by reducing the potential for 

pinning, crushing, or striking accidents 

in underground coal mines. 

DATES: Effective date: The final rule is 

effective March 16, 2015. 

Compliance dates: 

• Continuous mining machines 

manufactured after March 16, 2015 must 

meet requirements no later than 

November 16, 2015. 

• Continuous mining machines 

manufactured and equipped with a 

proximity detection system on or before 

March 16, 2015 must meet requirements 

no later than September 16, 2016. 

• Continuous mining machines 

manufactured and not equipped with a 

proximity detection system on or before 

March 16, 2015 must meet requirements 

no later than March 16, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sheila 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). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

A. Regulatory Authority 

B. Background 

II. Section-by-Section Analysis 

A. § 75.1732(a) Machines Covered 

B. § 75.1732(b) Requirements for a 

Proximity Detection System 

C. § 75.1732(c) Proximity Detection System 

Checks 

D. § 75.1732(d) Certifications and Records 

E. New Technology 

III. Regulatory Economic Analysis 

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563: 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

B. Population at Risk 

C. Net Benefits 

D. Benefits 

E. Compliance Costs 

IV. Feasibility 

A. Technological Feasibility 

B. Economic Feasibility 

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

A. Definition of a Small Mine 

B. Factual Basis for Certification 

C. Derivation of Revenues and Costs for 

Mines 

D. Screening Analysis for Underground 

Coal Mines 

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

A. Summary 

B. Procedural Details 

VII. Other Regulatory Considerations 

A. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

B. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

C. The Treasury and General Government 

Appropriations Act of 1999: Assessment 

of Federal Regulations and Policies on 

Families 

D. Executive Order 12630: Government 

Actions and Interference With 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights 

E. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice 

Reform 

F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. Executive Order 13272: Proper 

Consideration of Small Entities in 

Agency Rulemaking 

Availability of Information 

Federal Register Publications: Access 

rulemaking documents electronically at 

http://www.msha.gov/regsinfo.htm or 

http://www.regulations.gov [Docket No. 

MSHA–2010–0001]. Obtain a copy of a 

rulemaking document from the Office of 

Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 

MSHA, by request to 202–693–9440 

(voice) or 202–693–9441 (facsimile). 

(These are not toll-free numbers.) 

Information Collection Supporting 

Statement: The Information Collection 

Supporting Statement is available at 

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/

PRAMain. A copy of the Statement is 

also available from MSHA by request to 

Sheila McConnell at 

mcconnell.sheila.a@dol.gov, by phone 

request to 202–693–9440, or by 

facsimile to 202–693–9441. 

Regulatory Economic Analysis (REA): 

MSHA will post the REA on http://

www.regulations.gov and on MSHA’s 

Web site at http://www.msha.gov/

rea.htm. A copy of the REA also can be 

obtained from MSHA by request to 

Sheila McConnell at 

mcconnell.sheila.a@dol.gov, by phone 

request to 202–693–9440, or by 

facsimile to 202–693–9441. 

Email notification: To subscribe to 

receive email notification when the 

Agency publishes rulemaking 

documents in the Federal Register, go to 

http://www.msha.gov/subscriptions/

subscribe.aspx. 

I. Introduction 

The final rule requires mine operators 

to install proximity detection systems 

on continuous mining machines, except 

full-face continuous mining machines, 

in underground coal mines according to 

a phase-in schedule for newly 

manufactured and in-service equipment. 

A proximity detection system consists 

of machine-mounted components and 

any miner-wearable components. For 

proximity detection systems with 

miner-wearable components, the mine 

operator must provide a miner-wearable 

component to be worn by each miner on 

the working section (including 

producing or maintenance shifts). The 

final rule establishes performance and 

maintenance requirements for proximity 

detection systems and requires training 

for persons performing the installation 

and maintenance. These requirements 

will strengthen protections for miners 

by reducing the potential for pinning, 

crushing, or striking accidents that 

result in fatalities and injuries to miners 

who work near continuous mining 

machines. 

A. Regulatory Authority 

This final rule is issued under section 

101 of the Federal Mine Safety and 

Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act), as 

amended. 

B. Background 

Proximity detection is a technology 

that uses electronic sensors to detect 

motion or the location of one object 

relative to another. Proximity detection 

systems can provide a warning and stop 

mining machines before a pinning, 

crushing, or striking accident occurs 

that could result in injury or death to a 

miner. Miners are exposed to hazards 

from working near continuous mining 

machines in the confined space of an 

underground coal mine. Conditions in 

underground coal mines that contribute 

to these hazards include limited 

visibility, limited space around 

continuous mining machines, and 

uneven and slippery ground conditions 

that may contain loose rock or other 

debris. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2189 

To assess the costs and benefits of the 

final rule, MSHA conducted a review of 

fatal and nonfatal pinning, crushing, 

and striking accidents, which occurred 

in underground coal mines from 1984 

through 2013, to identify those that 

could have been prevented by using a 

proximity detection system. Of the 75 

preventable fatalities resulting from 

pinning, crushing, and striking 

accidents, 34 were associated with 

continuous mining machines. During 

this same time period, MSHA estimates 

that the use of a proximity detection 

system could have prevented 

approximately 238 nonfatal injuries 

associated with continuous mining 

machines, excluding full-face 

continuous mining machines. From 

2010 through 2013, six underground 

coal miners working in close proximity 

to continuous mining machines died 

from pinning, crushing, or striking 

accidents. 

These accidents continue to occur. In 

February 2014, a miner was fatally 

crushed by a continuous mining 

machine. Proximity detection systems 

are needed because training and 

outreach initiatives alone, while 

helpful, have not prevented these 

accidents from continuing to occur. 

These accidents are preventable and the 

proximity detection systems can 

provide necessary protections for 

miners. 

There are four proximity detection 

systems approved under the existing 

regulations for permissibility in 30 CFR 

part 18. These approvals are intended to 

ensure that the systems will not 

introduce an ignition hazard when 

operated in potentially explosive 

atmospheres. MSHA’s approval 

regulations in 30 CFR part 18 do not 

address how systems will perform in 

reducing pinning, crushing, or striking 

hazards. 

MSHA estimates that approximately 

438 of the 863 continuous mining 

machines in underground coal mines 

are not currently equipped with 

proximity detection systems. MSHA 

monitors the installation and 

development of proximity detection 

systems to maintain information on the 

number of proximity detection systems 

in use and the capabilities of the various 

systems. As of January 2015, 425 

continuous mining machines were 

equipped with proximity detection 

systems and are being used in 

underground coal mines. MSHA 

believes the majority of these systems 

will meet the provisions of this final 

rule without much change. For example, 

continuous mining machines equipped 

with proximity detection systems may 

only need modification of the warning 

signals to meet the requirements in this 

final rule. 

For those continuous mining 

machines not equipped with a 

proximity detection system, the phasein schedule provides time for mine 

operators to schedule installation of 

proximity detection systems during 

planned rebuilds. MSHA anticipates 

that mine operators will equip 

continuous mining machines with 

proximity detection systems during the 

first planned rebuild that occurs prior to 

March 16, 2018. 

MSHA published a Request for 

Information (RFI) on proximity 

detection systems in the Federal 

Register on February 1, 2010 (75 FR 

5009) and a proposed rule on August 31, 

2011 (76 FR 54163). The Agency held 

four public hearings. The comment 

period closed November 28, 2011. 

MSHA received comments from miners, 

mining associations, mining companies, 

manufacturers, and a federal 

government agency. Comments related 

to provisions of the final rule are 

addressed in the following section-bysection analysis. 

II. Section-by-Section Analysis 

A. § 75.1732(a) Machines Covered 

Final § 75.1732(a) requires operators 

to equip continuous mining machines, 

except full-face continuous mining 

machines, with proximity detection 

systems according to a phase-in 

schedule. For proximity detection 

systems with miner-wearable 

components, the mine operator must 

provide a miner-wearable component to 

be worn by each miner on the working 

section. Together, the machine-mounted 

components and any miner-wearable 

components make up the overall 

proximity detection system. 

Most commenters supported the use 

of proximity detection technology and 

stated that proximity detection systems 

are available for use on continuous 

mining machines. Some commenters, 

however, stated that MSHA should not 

require proximity detection systems 

until MSHA can assure that systems are 

safe and effective. A commenter stated 

that no proximity detection system has 

proven to be reliable and effective 

enough in an underground coal mine to 

be used as a safety device. 

Proximity detection systems are 

available and are in use with continuous 

mining machines. MSHA has 

determined that working near 

continuous mining machines in 

underground coal mines exposes miners 

to dangers that have resulted in 

preventable injuries and fatalities. 

MSHA’s experience with testing and 

demonstration of the four available 

systems shows that they are sufficiently 

developed to be used with continuous 

mining machines and perform 

effectively. 

Final § 75.1732(a), like the proposal, 

requires proximity detection systems to 

be installed on continuous mining 

machines, which include both on-board 

operated and remote-controlled 

continuous mining machines, except for 

full-face continuous mining machines. 

A full-face continuous mining 

machine includes integral roof bolting 

equipment and develops the full width 

of the mine entry in a single cut, 

generally without having to change its 

location. 

Some commenters stated that persons 

working around full-face continuous 

mining machines should be required to 

use a proximity detection system for 

tramming because tramming a full-face 

continuous mining machine can put 

miners at risk. One commenter stated 

that proximity detection systems are not 

needed on full-face continuous mining 

machines because they are much larger 

and slower than place-changing 

continuous mining machines and there 

are few, if any, crushing injuries caused 

by normal movement. Other 

commenters stated that the final rule 

should also require the use of proximity 

detection systems on shuttle cars, 

loading machines, scoops, bolters, and 

other equipment. 

After considering comments, the final 

rule, like the proposal, does not require 

mine operators to equip full-face 

continuous mining machines with 

proximity detection systems. The 

Agency has not found any history of 

accidents involving full-face continuous 

mining machines and there is limited 

experience with proximity detection 

systems on these machines. 

The final rule does not require that 

operators equip other mobile machines 

with proximity detection systems. 

MSHA is addressing the use of 

proximity detection systems on other 

mobile machines in a separate 

rulemaking (RIN 1219–AB78). 

Final § 75.1732(a), unlike the 

proposal, requires that, for proximity 

detection systems with miner-wearable 

components, the mine operator must 

provide a miner-wearable component to 

be worn by each miner on the working 

section. 

In the proposal, MSHA solicited 

comments on which miners working 

around continuous mining machines 

should be required to have a minerwearable component. In the preamble to 

the proposal, MSHA noted that the cost 

estimates for the miner-wearable 

components included in the Preliminary 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
2190 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Regulatory Economic Analysis (PREA) 

were based on miners on the working 

section being equipped with these 

components. MSHA estimated that, on 

average, there are seven miners on the 

working section and they would be 

provided with miner-wearable 

components. 

Several commenters stated that any 

miner on the working section should be 

required to wear a miner-wearable 

component. One commenter stated that 

only miners who interact closely with 

the continuous mining machine on a 

daily basis should wear a minerwearable component. This commenter 

noted that only the continuous mining 

machine operator, helper/cable handler, 

and maintenance personnel working on 

an energized continuous mining 

machine were fatally injured in the 

pinning, crushing, and striking 

accidents involving continuous mining 

machines. 

Each of the four proximity detection 

systems approved for underground coal 

mines in the United States uses a minerwearable component to determine 

distance between the machine and a 

miner. These systems cannot detect a 

miner who is not wearing the 

component and, therefore, could not 

stop the machine before contacting such 

miners. 

After considering the comments, 

MSHA determined that all miners on a 

working section where the continuous 

mining machine is equipped with a 

proximity detection system must wear a 

miner-wearable component. Under the 

final rule, the mine operator must 

provide a miner-wearable component to 

be worn by each miner on the working 

section (including production and 

maintenance shifts). 

In MSHA’s experience, most operators 

who move continuous mining machines 

outby the working section generally use 

miners from the working section who 

would be protected by the proximity 

detection system. MSHA anticipates 

that this industry practice would 

continue after the final rule goes into 

effect. 

A commenter stated that some 

proximity detection systems have 

limited ability to function properly with 

more than two miner-wearable 

components. MSHA has observed two 

proximity detection systems functioning 

properly with multiple miner-wearable 

components in use on the working 

section, demonstrating that proximity 

detection systems can function properly 

with more than two miner-wearable 

components. MSHA is aware that, in the 

past, a system has experienced some 

adverse effects when two or more 

miner-wearable components were near 

the machine. The adverse effects were 

unintended expansion of the warning 

and stop distances, but these effects 

would not prevent the system from 

meeting the requirements of the final 

rule (e.g., to stop before contacting a 

miner). MSHA has found that advances 

in the technology now allow proximity 

detection systems to function properly 

with more than two miners on the 

working section without any adverse 

effects. 

MSHA proposed a phase-in schedule 

of 3 months for continuous mining 

machines (except full-face continuous 

mining machines) manufactured after 

the publication date of a final rule and 

18 months for machines (except fullface continuous mining machines) 

manufactured on or before the 

publication date of a final rule. 

Although not separately discussed 

under the proposal, machines equipped 

with a proximity detection system prior 

to the publication date of a final rule 

would have been subject to the 18- 

month phase-in schedule for continuous 

mining machines manufactured before 

the publication date. 

Final § 75.1732(a)(1) requires 

continuous mining machines 

manufactured after March 16, 2015 to 

meet the requirements in this section no 

later than November 16, 2015. These 

machines must meet the requirements 

in this section when placed in service 

with a proximity detection system. 

Final § 75.1732(a)(2) requires 

continuous mining machines 

manufactured and equipped with a 

proximity detection system on or before 

March 16, 2015 to meet the 

requirements in this section no later 

than September 16, 2016. 

Final § 75.1732(a)(3) requires 

continuous mining machines 

manufactured and not equipped with a 

proximity detection system on or before 

March 16, 2015 to meet the 

requirements in this section no later 

than March 16, 2018. These machines 

must meet the requirements in this 

section when placed in service with a 

proximity detection system. A 

continuous mining machine is placed in 

service when it is equipped with a 

proximity detection system and placed 

in the underground coal mine. 

MSHA solicited comments on the 

proposed phase-in schedule of 3 months 

for new machines and 18 months for inservice machines. 

One commenter supported the 

proposed phase-in schedule of 3 months 

for new machines. Several commenters 

stated additional time is needed for new 

machines and suggested 6 months. A 

commenter stated that additional time 

was needed to develop manuals, train 

miners, and validate installations. Some 

commenters also stated that the 

proposed schedule was not sufficient to 

allow for the required MSHA approvals. 

One commenter supported the 

proposed phase-in schedule of 18 

months for machines manufactured 

before the effective date of the rule. 

Many commenters stated that the 

proposed phase-in schedule was 

insufficient to provide for installation of 

proximity detection systems on 

continuous mining machines. These 

commenters stated that additional time 

is necessary to allow mine operators to 

equip continuous mining machines 

manufactured before the effective date 

of the rule with proximity detection 

systems during scheduled rebuilds. 

Most commenters stated that retrofitting 

these machines on the surface is 

necessary to assure the quality of the 

installations. One commenter, however, 

has experience installing proximity 

detection systems underground and on 

the surface and provided estimated 

timeframes for installation 

underground, on the surface of a mine, 

and at the manufacturer or rebuild 

facility. Commenters generally 

recommended a 36-month timeframe 

before requiring installation for inservice machines. Some commenters 

suggested 24 months, while others 

suggested 48 months. MSHA agrees that 

it will take more time than proposed for 

proximity detection system 

manufacturers, machine manufacturers, 

and mine operators to obtain approval 

under 30 CFR part 18, and for 

manufacturers to produce and mine 

operators to install proximity detection 

systems. 

MSHA has determined that the longer 

phase-in schedules in the final rule 

provide an appropriate amount of time 

for operators to engage in the necessary 

actions to comply with the final rule. 

This is based on the availability of four 

MSHA-approved proximity detection 

systems for continuous mining 

machines, the estimated number of 

continuous mining machines that would 

be replaced by newly manufactured 

machines during the phase-in period, 

manufacturers’ capacity to produce and 

install proximity detection systems on 

machines in use, and comments 

received in response to the proposed 

rule. The compliance dates provide time 

for manufacturers to produce and install 

proximity detection systems, for mine 

operators to modify their existing 

proximity detection systems, and for 

mine operators to train their workforce. 

MSHA considers the date of 

manufacture as the date identified on 

the machine or otherwise provided by 

the manufacturer. MSHA considers a 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2191 

continuous mining machine to be 

equipped with a proximity detection 

system when the machine-mounted 

components are installed on the 

machine and miners are provided with 

the miner-wearable components. 

Mine operators that obtain continuous 

mining machines manufactured after 

March 16, 2015 must comply no later 

than November 16, 2015. MSHA 

believes that these machines can be 

equipped with proximity detection 

systems during the manufacturing 

process. This compliance date provides 

time for manufacturers and mine 

operators to modify any MSHA 

approvals, if necessary; provide miners 

with miner-wearable components; and 

provide training to meet the 

requirements of this final rule. 

Continuous mining machines 

manufactured and equipped with the 

machine-mounted components of a 

proximity detection system after March 

16, 2015 must meet the requirements of 

the final rule when placed in service. 

MSHA believes it is important for 

continuous mining machines equipped 

with a proximity detection system to 

meet the final rule’s requirements when 

placed in service to assure that miners 

are protected from pinning, crushing, 

and striking hazards. 

As stated earlier, under the proposal, 

continuous mining machines in use in 

underground coal mines and equipped 

with proximity detection systems prior 

to the publication date of a final rule 

would have been subject to the 

proposed 18-month phase-in schedule 

for continuous mining machines 

manufactured before the publication 

date. A phase-in schedule for this group 

of machines was not discussed 

separately in the proposal, as there were 

a limited number of continuous mining 

machines equipped with proximity 

detection systems in service in the 

United States when the proposal was 

published. However, as of January 2015, 

MSHA estimates that 425 continuous 

mining machines in use in underground 

coal mines were equipped with 

proximity detection systems. 

This final rule provides 18 months 

after March 16, 2015 for mine operators 

to make modifications to the existing 

proximity detection systems on these 

machines. MSHA has determined that 

18 months provides operators with 

enough time to obtain any MSHA 

approvals, to modify continuous mining 

machines that are equipped with a 

proximity detection system to meet the 

requirements, and to provide training. 

MSHA believes the majority of these 

machines will comply with the 

provisions of this final rule without 

much change to the systems. For 

example, continuous mining machines 

equipped with proximity detection 

systems may only need modification of 

the warning signals to meet the 

requirements of this final rule. MSHA 

expects that the systems can be 

modified during maintenance shifts 

while the machine is underground. 

Most continuous mining machines 

equipped with proximity detection 

systems are operating with one minerwearable component. This component is 

for the machine operator. To meet the 

requirements of the final rule, mine 

operators will need to provide minerwearable components to additional 

miners on the working section. 

MSHA proposed an 18-month phasein schedule for machines manufactured 

before the publication date of the final 

rule. MSHA has determined that 

allowing up to 36 months after March 

16, 2015 provides both operators and 

manufacturers with enough time to 

retrofit the continuous mining machines 

manufactured on or before March 16, 

2015. MSHA recognizes that machines 

that are in use when the final rule goes 

into effect will need to be taken out of 

use for a period of time. The longer 

phase-in schedule under the final rule 

provides mine operators time to 

complete the installation during 

planned rebuilds or scheduled 

maintenance and provides time to train 

the workforce on proximity detection 

systems. MSHA anticipates that mine 

operators will equip continuous mining 

machines with proximity detection 

systems during the first planned rebuild 

that occurs prior to March 16, 2018. 

Once these continuous mining 

machines are retrofitted with a 

proximity detection system, mine 

operators must meet the requirements of 

the final rule when these machines are 

placed in service to assure that miners 

are protected from pinning, crushing, 

and striking hazards. 

MSHA acknowledges that it will take 

some time for operators and 

manufacturers to obtain MSHA 

approvals to equip continuous mining 

machines with proximity detection 

systems. MSHA must approve minerwearable components and continuous 

mining machines with machinemounted components of a proximity 

detection system as permissible 

equipment under existing regulations in 

30 CFR part 18. The three methods to 

obtain MSHA approval to add the 

machine-mounted components of a 

proximity detection system to a 

continuous mining machine are: 

(1) A continuous mining machine 

manufacturer can apply for a Revised 

Approval Modification Program (RAMP) 

approval; (2) a mine operator can apply 

to the Approval and Certification Center 

(A&CC) for a field modification; or (3) a 

mine operator can notify the MSHA 

district manager through a district field 

change application. 

MSHA offers an optional Proximity 

Detection Acceptance (PDA) program 

which allows a proximity detection 

system manufacturer to obtain MSHA 

acceptance for the machine-mounted 

components of a proximity detection 

system (PDA Acceptance Number). This 

acceptance states that the machinemounted components of the proximity 

detection system have been evaluated 

under 30 CFR part 18 and are suitable 

for installation on an MSHA-approved 

machine. It permits the manufacturer or 

owner of a machine to add the machinemounted components of a proximity 

detection system to a machine by 

requesting MSHA approval to add the 

acceptance number to the machine 

approval. MSHA believes the phase-in 

schedule in the final rule provides the 

time needed to obtain MSHA approval 

or acceptance. 

The phase-in schedule under the final 

rule also allows time for the mine 

operators to train miners on how to use 

proximity detection systems. Mine 

operators, under existing 30 CFR part 

48, must provide miners with new task 

training. MSHA intends that mine 

operators will address safety issues, 

such as some machines being equipped 

with proximity detection systems while 

others are not, that might arise during 

the phase-in period. 

Some commenters stated that the final 

rule should not include additional or 

redundant training requirements. One 

commenter stated that initial training 

(new task training) and retraining 

should be separate from 30 CFR part 48 

annual retraining requirements. This 

commenter also stated that retraining on 

proximity detection systems should be 

performed at least quarterly. 

Commenters stated that training 

should include a combination of 

classroom and hands-on training and 

that MSHA should consider a cold-start 

period (i.e., using a proximity detection 

system without an active stop function) 

to allow miners to become familiar with 

how proximity detection systems 

function. A commenter stated that, 

during a cold-start period, the stopping 

function is not yet active, which 

facilitates employee interpretation and 

exploration of the system and 

identification of possible variations to 

normal safe operating procedures. 

Commenters stated that training should 

be provided to all miners who may 

come in contact with a continuous 

mining machine. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
2192 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Miners working near continuous 

mining machines equipped with 

proximity detection systems will engage 

in different and unfamiliar machine 

operating procedures resulting from 

new work positions, machine 

movements, and new visual and audible 

signals. Training on proximity detection 

systems, other than for installing and 

maintaining systems, is required under 

existing 30 CFR part 48. Existing 

§ 48.7(a) requires that miners assigned 

to new work tasks as mobile equipment 

operators not perform new work tasks 

until training has been completed. In 

addition, § 48.7(c) requires that miners 

assigned a new task not covered in 

§ 48.7(a) be instructed in the safety and 

health aspects and safe work procedures 

of the task prior to performing the task. 

Miners working near continuous mining 

machines equipped with proximity 

detection systems will receive new task 

training on the operation of the newly 

equipped machine and the minerwearable components. New task training 

could include: General proximity 

detection system operation during 

tramming, cutting, and loading; warning 

and stop zone size and shape; response 

to warning signals; response to system 

malfunction; and re-charging minerwearable components. 

New task training is separate from 

new miner training under existing § 48.5 

and annual refresher training under 

existing § 48.8. New task training helps 

assure that miners have the necessary 

skills to perform new tasks prior to 

assuming responsibility for these tasks. 

Mine operators should assure that 

training on proximity detection systems 

includes hands-on training during 

supervised non-production activities. 

The hands-on training allows miners to 

experience how the systems work and to 

determine the appropriate work 

locations. Based on Agency experience, 

hands-on training is most effective 

when provided in miners’ work 

locations. As required by existing 

§ 48.7(a)(3), machine operators must be 

instructed in safe operating procedures 

applicable to new or modified machines 

to be installed or put into operation in 

the mine, which require new or 

different operating procedures. 

New task training cannot include 

cold-start training underground after the 

relevant compliance date because the 

system must meet the requirements of 

the final rule at that time (e.g., stop the 

machine before contacting a miner, 

provide audible and visual warning 

signals). 

B. § 75.1732(b) Requirements for a 

Proximity Detection System 

Final § 75.1732(b) establishes 

requirements for proximity detection 

systems. A proximity detection system 

includes machine-mounted components 

and miner-wearable components. 

Final § 75.1732(b)(1) requires that a 

proximity detection system cause a 

machine, which is tramming from placeto-place or repositioning, to stop before 

contacting a miner except for a miner 

who is in the on-board operator’s 

compartment. This provision is changed 

from proposed § 75.1732(b)(1) that 

would have required that a proximity 

detection system cause a machine to 

stop no closer than 3 feet from a miner. 

MSHA solicited comments on the 

proposed 3-foot stopping distance and 

on alternatives such as other specific 

stopping distances or a performancebased requirement. Performance-based 

requirements focus on attaining 

objectives, such as stopping a machine 

before contacting a miner, rather than 

being prescriptive in how the result is 

achieved, such as stopping within a 

certain distance. Some commenters 

stated that the Agency’s proposal to 

require the machine to stop no closer 

than 3 feet from a miner would not 

provide flexibility to allow for mineand machine-specific conditions. They 

stated that there were too many 

variables to be able to assure that the 

machine will stop consistently before 

getting to 3 feet from a miner. According 

to these commenters, these variables 

include the imprecision of 

electromagnetic technology, mine 

conditions, and machine relay 

activation time. Commenters stated that 

MSHA should consider a performancebased approach. One commenter, 

however, agreed that a proximity 

detection system should cause a 

machine to stop no closer than 3 feet 

from a miner. 

The National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) recommended that MSHA use 

a performance-based approach because 

the requirement to stop the machine no 

closer than 3 feet from a miner would 

limit future technological innovations 

that could improve miner safety. NIOSH 

stated that future ‘‘intelligent’’ systems, 

those that monitor workers’ positions 

and disable only unsafe movement, may 

not require the entire machine to stop; 

rather they could restrict certain 

motions of the machine. NIOSH stated 

that there are several advantages to 

restricting certain motions of the 

machine including decreased nuisance 

shut-downs; flexibility in operator 

position when close proximity to the 

machine is needed; flexibility in 

operator position to avoid other hazards; 

and increased safety and productivity. 

MSHA’s experience with testing and 

observing proximity detection systems 

indicates that causing a machine to stop 

before contacting a miner provides the 

required performance and appropriate 

protection. A performance-based 

approach allows mine operators and 

manufacturers to address mine- and 

machine-specific conditions when 

determining the appropriate settings for 

the proximity detection system. Specific 

conditions include steep or slippery 

roadways, tramming speed of 

machinery, location of the minerwearable component, and the accuracy 

of the proximity detection system. Mine 

operators are responsible for 

programming a proximity detection 

system to initiate the stop movement 

function at an appropriate distance from 

a miner to assure that the machine stops 

before it can contact a miner. 

The final rule requires that a 

proximity detection system cause a 

continuous mining machine to stop 

before contacting a miner. Stopping a 

continuous mining machine consists of 

stopping the tramming and conveyor 

swing movements that could cause the 

machine to contact a miner. The 

machine must remain stopped while 

any miner is within the programmed 

stop zone. 

Commenters stated that a proximity 

detection system should only stop the 

tram and conveyor boom swing 

movements and not de-energize the 

entire continuous mining machine. 

Unexpected tramming and conveyer 

boom swing movements can be 

hazardous. Many pinning, crushing, and 

striking accidents occur as a result of 

continuous mining machine tram or 

conveyor boom swing functions. MSHA 

has determined that it is unnecessary to 

shut down the machine to stop all 

machine movement because miners are 

protected by stopping the tramming and 

conveyor swing movements. Shutting 

down the machine causes stress on 

machine components. The requirement 

to stop tram and conveyor boom swing 

movements that could contact a miner 

does not prohibit the use of proximity 

detection systems that can pinpoint a 

miner’s location and prevent machine 

movements accordingly. 

Final § 75.1732(b)(1) requires that the 

proximity detection system cause a 

machine, which is tramming from placeto-place or repositioning, to stop before 

contacting a miner except for a miner 

who is in the on-board operator’s 

compartment. The final rule, like 

proposed § 75.1732(b)(1)(i), allows 

machines equipped with a proximity 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2193 

detection system to move if the only 

miner in proximity occupies the 

operator’s compartment. MSHA did not 

receive comments on proposed 

§ 75.1732(b)(1)(i). 

Final § 75.1732(b)(1) does not include 

proposed § 75.1732(b)(1)(ii), which 

would have provided an exception for a 

miner who is remotely operating a 

continuous mining machine while 

cutting coal or rock. The proposal 

would have required the machine to 

stop before contacting the machine 

operator. Commenters stated that the 

proposed requirement would force 

miners to stand in a location with a 

significantly higher risk of being struck 

by a shuttle car while cutting or loading 

or turning a crosscut. Other commenters 

stated that the proximity detection 

system should allow a continuous 

mining machine operator to be located 

behind the rear bumper and adjacent to 

the conveyor boom when cutting or 

loading. One commenter has experience 

deactivating the proximity detection 

system when cutting or loading. 

Another commenter stated that there is 

no history of accidents during cutting or 

loading. Another commenter stated that 

a zone must be provided to prevent 

forcing the continuous mining machine 

operator out of a safe area and into the 

hazardous area around another piece of 

equipment particularly, shuttle cars, 

ram cars, loading machines, and scoops. 

NIOSH recommended eliminating 

§ 75.1732(b)(1)(ii) as proposed. NIOSH 

and other commenters stated there is no 

means currently available in the MSHAapproved proximity detection systems 

for determining whether the continuous 

mining machine is cutting coal/rock or 

only running the cutter drum. NIOSH 

and other commenters also stated that 

other activities may require an operator 

or miner to be closer than 3 feet to the 

continuous mining machine, such as 

positioning the conveyor boom over the 

shuttle car or activating certain machine 

functions during maintenance. 

MSHA reviewed an internal study 

conducted in 2002 in which MSHA 

studied the location of the remotecontrolled continuous mining machine 

operator relative to the machine during 

production and while tramming. This 

internal study was included in the 

record for public review and comment. 

MSHA found that using a proximity 

detection system during cutting would 

be impractical due to where the 

continuous mining machine operator 

has to stand to safely operate the 

machine. The use of the proximity 

detection system on the continuous 

mining machine during cutting of coal 

may place the operator in the path of 

other equipment. The study concluded 

that the proximity detection system 

should be activated while tramming but 

not be activated while cutting. 

MSHA agrees with commenters who 

identified situations during cutting 

when the proposed requirement, in 

some circumstances, may cause miners 

to stand in a location with a higher risk 

of being struck by a coal hauling 

machine. The continuous mining 

machine was tramming from place-toplace or repositioning in all 34 fatal 

accidents (those occurring in 1984 

through 2013) that could have been 

prevented by the use of proximity 

detection systems. MSHA recognizes 

that there are certain mining operations 

where continuous mining machine 

operators must get close to the machine 

to properly perform the required tasks 

(e.g., turning crosscuts). 

Under the final rule, mine operators 

must use proximity detection systems 

that will cause a continuous mining 

machine, which is tramming from placeto-place or repositioning, to stop before 

contacting a miner (except for a miner 

who is in an on-board operator’s 

compartment). Tramming from place-toplace includes moving the machine 

from one working face to another (i.e., 

place-changing). Repositioning includes 

moving from one side of a cut to the 

other (commonly called setting over) 

and also includes cleaning up loose coal 

or rock when not cutting. 

The final rule does not require that a 

proximity detection system provide a 

warning or stop the continuous mining 

machine when it is cutting coal or rock. 

This includes when the cutter head is 

used to clean up coal or rock, such as 

after a roof fall. MSHA intends that the 

proximity detection system be 

operational and function properly at all 

times when the continuous mining 

machine is in use. However, it is not 

required to provide a warning or stop 

machine movement when the 

continuous mining machine is cutting 

coal or rock. 

In MSHA’s experience, when a 

continuous mining machine is cutting 

coal or rock, the machine moves slower, 

reducing the hazard. This reduced 

hazard is reflected by the absence of 

fatal accidents when continuous mining 

machines are cutting. MSHA recognizes 

that if the continuous mining machine 

operator is forced away from the 

machine, the operator may be exposed 

to other hazards. The final rule is 

changed from the proposal to allow 

miners to work in close proximity to the 

continuous mining machine when it is 

cutting coal or rock to avoid hazards 

related to other mobile machines. 

Based on NIOSH recommendations, 

comments received, and MSHA 

experience, MSHA is requiring 

proximity detection systems to cause a 

machine, when tramming from place-toplace or repositioning, to stop before 

contacting a miner. An exception is 

provided when relocating a continuous 

mining machine from an unsafe location 

for repair when a machine-mounted 

component of a proximity detection 

system is not functioning properly. 

Final § 75.1732(b)(2) is changed from 

the proposal and requires that a 

proximity detection system provide an 

audible and a visual warning signal on 

the miner-wearable component and a 

visual warning signal on the machine 

that alert miners before the system 

causes a machine to stop. These 

warning signals must be distinguishable 

from other signals. The proposal would 

have required either an audible or visual 

warning signal, distinguishable from 

other signals, when the machine is 5 

feet and closer to a miner. 

One commenter stated that both an 

audible and visual warning is necessary 

when the continuous mining machine is 

5 feet and closer to the miner. 

After considering comments, MSHA 

determined that a proximity detection 

system must provide both an audible 

and visual warning signal to any miner 

who may be in proximity to the 

continuous mining machine. This 

provides an added margin of safety 

because audible signals may not always 

be heard and visual signals may not 

always be seen. 

The audible and visual warnings 

provided by miner-wearable 

components allow the miner wearing 

the component to move away from the 

machine before the proximity detection 

system causes the machine to stop. The 

visual warning provided on the machine 

alerts the machine operator as well as 

all miners near the machine. 

Several commenters recommended a 

performance-based warning signal 

requirement. One commenter stated that 

warning signals are critical to the 

implementation of a proximity detection 

system, but that a 5-foot warning is not 

practical for all mining conditions. This 

commenter stated that the existing 

proximity detection technology cannot 

guarantee a set distance from a person 

where the proximity detection system 

would provide a warning due to 

electromagnetic variability and 

environmental conditions. Several 

commenters stated that a warning signal 

is unnecessary and may be a nuisance. 

MSHA agrees with commenters who 

stated that a warning signal requirement 

should be performance-based rather 

than the 5-foot distance in the proposal. 

A performance-based approach allows 

mine operators and manufacturers to 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
2194 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

address mine- and machine-specific 

conditions, tramming speed of 

machinery, location of the minerwearable component, and accuracy of 

the proximity detection system when 

determining the appropriate settings for 

triggering warnings. MSHA anticipates 

that mine operators and manufacturers 

will program a proximity detection 

system to provide warnings at a distance 

that will allow the miner to move away 

before the proximity detection system 

causes the machine to stop. 

Final § 75.1732(b)(2) does not include 

proposed paragraphs (i), the exception 

to provide a warning signal for a miner 

who is in an on-board operator’s 

compartment, and (ii), the exception to 

provide a warning signal for a miner 

who is remotely operating a continuous 

mining machine while cutting coal or 

rock. The proposed paragraphs are not 

needed because final § 75.1732(b)(1) 

requires a proximity detection system to 

cause a machine, which is tramming 

from place-to-place or repositioning, to 

stop before contacting a miner. For the 

reasons noted above, this final rule does 

not require the proximity detection 

system to cause a machine to stop before 

contacting a miner when cutting coal or 

rock as proposed. The exceptions are 

not needed. Final § 75.1732(b)(2) is 

performance-based and requires audible 

and visual warning signals before 

causing a machine to stop. 

Final § 75.1732(b)(3), like the 

proposal, requires that a proximity 

detection system provide a visual signal 

on the machine that indicates the 

machine-mounted components are 

functioning properly. 

A commenter stated that this 

provision should be removed because 

the signal could give miners a false 

sense of security. Another commenter 

stated that a proximity detection system 

should include a diagnostic function 

that provides a visual signal that the 

system is working properly. This 

commenter stated that a visual signal 

will allow miners to readily determine 

that the system is functioning properly 

and recommended that the signal be 

located where a miner can observe it 

from all work locations. 

MSHA agrees that the required visual 

signal allows miners to readily 

determine that the machine-mounted 

components of a proximity detection 

system are functioning properly. A 

light-emitting diode (LED) would be an 

acceptable visual signal. The signal 

indicates that the machine-mounted 

components are working properly. 

A commenter stated that MSHA 

should clarify the term functioning 

properly. MSHA considers the 

proximity detection system to be 

functioning properly when the system is 

working as designed and will: Cause the 

machine to stop before contacting a 

miner; provide audible and visual 

warning signals, distinguishable from 

other signals, that alert miners before 

causing the machine to stop; provide the 

required visual signals on the machine; 

and prevent movement of the machine 

if any machine-mounted component is 

not working as intended. If a minerwearable component malfunctions 

during the shift, a replacement must be 

provided for the miner. 

Final § 75.1732(b)(4), similar to the 

proposal, requires that a proximity 

detection system prevent movement of 

the continuous mining machine if any 

machine-mounted component of the 

system is not functioning properly. 

However, a system with any machinemounted component that is not 

functioning properly may allow 

machine movement if it provides an 

audible or visual warning signal, 

distinguishable from other signals, 

during movement. Such movement is 

permitted only for purposes of 

relocating the machine from an unsafe 

location for repair. 

A commenter stated that a distinct 

audible or visual alarm will make 

miners aware that the proximity 

detection system is not operating 

normally. Several commenters 

recommended allowing a machine with 

a malfunctioning proximity detection 

system to operate until the next 

maintenance shift or up to 24 hours 

using alternative protective measures. 

One commenter recommended that the 

rule permit a machine with a 

malfunctioning proximity detection 

system to operate until finishing the cut 

that is in progress. This commenter 

stated that completing the cut should be 

permitted since there is no history of 

accidents during cutting or loading. 

Another commenter supported the 

proposal but stated that a machine with 

a malfunctioning proximity detection 

system should only be moved under the 

direction of a qualified mechanic or 

certified electrician. A commenter 

stated that MSHA should allow the 

machine to continue moving with an 

audible or visual warning signal only for 

the time necessary to move the machine 

to a safe location for repair before the 

end of the current production shift. 

The final rule is changed from the 

proposal to clarify that a proximity 

detection system must prevent 

movement of the continuous mining 

machine if any machine-mounted 

component of the system is not 

functioning properly. MSHA intends for 

the proximity detection system to 

prevent all machine movement. This 

includes the tramming and conveyor 

swing movements that could cause the 

machine to contact a miner, as well as 

other machine movements associated 

with cutting coal or rock. Cutting cannot 

continue because the tramming 

function, which is needed to keep the 

cutter head in contact with coal or rock, 

would be disabled when machinemounted components malfunction. A 

continuous mining machine equipped 

with a malfunctioning machinemounted component could expose 

miners to pinning, crushing, and 

striking hazards. When any machinemounted component of the system is 

not functioning properly, preventing all 

machine movement helps to assure that 

miners are protected. 

Final § 75.1732(b)(4) provides for an 

exception to allow a machine to be 

moved for repair if the system is not 

functioning properly; the machine is in 

an unsafe location; and the system 

provides an audible or visual warning 

signal, distinguishable from other 

signals, during movement. Overriding 

the proximity detection system should 

only occur for the time necessary to 

move the machine to a safe location— 

for example, the time needed to move a 

continuous mining machine from under 

unsupported roof to an appropriate 

repair location. MSHA intends that 

machine movement be restricted to 

tramming and the hydraulic functions 

necessary to move the continuous 

mining machine to a safe location. 

Under the final rule, this movement is 

allowed only to relocate the machine so 

repairs can be made safely. 

The final rule does not require a 

mechanic or qualified electrician to 

direct the relocation of a machine with 

a malfunctioning proximity detection 

system. Mine operators must train 

machine operators, under existing new 

task training requirements, to relocate a 

machine to a safe location for repair. 

This provision is changed from the 

proposal to clarify that the warning 

signal must be provided by the 

proximity detection system. Either an 

audible or visual signal is sufficient 

warning when the machine is moving 

while any machine-mounted component 

of the proximity detection system is not 

functioning properly. In MSHA’s 

experience, both types of warning 

signals are not necessary because miners 

are generally aware if the machine is not 

functioning properly and the machine 

will only be moved a limited distance 

in a supervised environment. 

Final § 75.1732(b)(5), changed from 

the proposal, requires that proximity 

detection systems be installed to 

prevent interference that adversely 

affects performance of any electrical 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2195 

system. The proposed rule would have 

required mine operators to prevent 

interference with or from other 

electrical systems. The final rule 

clarifies that mine operators must 

prevent interference that adversely 

affects performance of any electrical 

system. 

A commenter stated that if there are 

interference issues with a proximity 

detection system, the problems need to 

be identified, resolved, and shared with 

the rest of the industry. Commenters 

stated there are several electrical 

devices at risk for interference and this 

interference may occur when kneeling 

in close proximity to loops of cables, 

such as in low seam mines where 

experience with proximity detection 

systems is limited. A commenter stated 

that a final rule should require 

installation such that electrical 

interference from other devices does not 

affect proper functioning. 

Electrical systems used in the mine, 

including proximity detection systems, 

can adversely affect the function of 

other electrical systems through the 

generation of electromagnetic 

interference which includes radio 

frequency interference. There have been 

instances of adverse performance of a 

remote-controlled system, an 

atmospheric monitoring system, and a 

machine-mounted methane monitoring 

system when a hand-held radio was in 

use near the affected systems. 

Electromagnetic output of approved 

proximity detection systems is 

substantially lower and uses different 

frequencies than other mine electrical 

systems, such as communication and 

atmospheric monitoring systems; 

therefore, the likelihood of encountering 

interference issues is less, even in low 

seam mines. Additionally, MSHA has 

not experienced issues with adverse 

interference, with or from other 

electrical systems, associated with the 

425 systems in use on continuous 

mining machines in underground coal 

mines. 

The final rule requires the mine 

operator to evaluate the proximity 

detection system and other electrical 

systems, including blasting circuits, in 

the mine and take adequate steps to 

prevent adverse interference. Steps 

could include design considerations, 

such as the addition of filters or 

providing adequate separation between 

electrical systems. 

Final § 75.1732(b)(6), changed from 

the proposal, requires that a proximity 

detection system be installed and 

maintained in proper operating 

condition by a person trained in the 

installation and maintenance of the 

system. 

One commenter stated that 

continuous mining machine operators, 

mechanics, and electricians should 

receive training at the mine from the 

manufacturer covering the operation, 

installation, and maintenance of the 

system. Another commenter stated that 

MSHA should not mandate training 

because either the persons can perform 

the work or they cannot. Another 

commenter stated that all miners 

affected by a proximity detection system 

should be trained as required by 30 CFR 

part 48 task training and, to prevent 

redundancy, there should not be 

additional training requirements. 

Based on MSHA’s experience with 

testing of proximity detection systems, 

the Agency has determined that proper 

functioning of a proximity detection 

system is directly related to the quality 

of the installation and maintenance of 

the systems. The training requirement in 

the final rule for installing and 

maintaining a proximity detection 

system is in addition to training 

required under existing part 48. The 

new training requirement helps assure 

that the person performing the 

installation and maintenance of a 

proximity detection system understands 

the system and can perform the work 

necessary to assure that the system 

operates properly. Appropriate training 

could include adjusting detection zones, 

trouble-shooting electrical connections, 

and replacing and adjusting machinemounted and miner-wearable 

components. 

MSHA anticipates that operators will 

assign miners to perform most 

maintenance activities, but 

representatives of the manufacturer may 

perform some maintenance. Based on 

Agency experience, operators will 

generally arrange for proximity 

detection system manufacturers to 

provide appropriate training to miners 

for installation and maintenance. 

Miners receiving training from 

manufacturers’ representatives will, in 

most cases, provide training for other 

miners who may undertake installation 

and maintenance duties at the mine. In 

MSHA’s experience, many mines use 

the train-the-trainer model for 

installation and maintenance activities. 

The final rule is changed from the 

proposal to clarify that the proximity 

detection system must be installed and 

maintained in proper operating 

condition. A system must operate 

properly to protect miners near the 

machine. This includes the machinemounted components and the minerwearable components. Mine operators 

will be expected to demonstrate that a 

continuous mining machine equipped 

with a proximity detection system in 

use at their mine is installed and 

maintained in proper operating 

condition. 

One method a mine operator could 

use to demonstrate that a proximity 

detection system is operating properly 

to cause the machine to stop before 

contacting a miner is to suspend a 

miner-wearable component from the 

mine roof, move the machine towards 

the suspended component, and after the 

proximity detection system causes the 

machine to stop movement, determine 

whether the machine would have 

contacted a miner. When making this 

determination, the position of the 

miner-wearable component on the 

miner and the distance from the closest 

surface of the continuous mining 

machine to the miner-wearable 

component should be considered. Mineand machine-specific conditions, 

including steep or slippery roadways, 

tramming speed of machinery, location 

of the miner-wearable component, and 

the accuracy of the proximity detection 

system, should also be considered. 

C. § 75.1732(c) Proximity Detection 

System Checks 

Final § 75.1732(c), like the proposal, 

establishes requirements for checking 

proximity detection systems. 

Final § 75.1732(c)(1) requires that 

operators designate a person to perform 

a check of machine-mounted 

components of the proximity detection 

system to verify that components are 

intact, that the system is functioning 

properly, and take action to correct 

defects: (i) At the beginning of each shift 

when the machine is to be used; or (ii) 

immediately prior to the time the 

machine is to be operated if not in use 

at the beginning of a shift; or (iii) within 

one hour of a shift change if the shift 

change occurs without an interruption 

in production. Final § 75.1732(c)(1), 

unlike the proposal, does not include 

the word ‘‘visual’’ because the check 

requires verification of both the audible 

and visual warning signals under final 

§ 75.1732(b)(2). 

A commenter stated that MSHA 

should require a mine operator to use 

MSHA-approved written examination 

procedures for this check. This 

commenter also recommended requiring 

a visual check by the machine operator 

and a certified electrician or qualified 

mechanic. Another commenter, 

however, stated that a requirement for a 

check was unnecessary. A commenter 

also stated that MSHA should allow the 

operator to determine how often and 

when the proximity detection system is 

checked for proper operation. Other 

commenters stated that the machine 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
2196 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

hardware should be checked before each 

shift. 

After reviewing the comments, MSHA 

determined that a check of the machinemounted components of a proximity 

detection system should be performed 

before the continuous mining machine 

is operated each shift. MSHA 

anticipates that the check will be 

performed at the same time as the 

existing on-shift dust control parameter 

check. A check of machine-mounted 

components of the proximity detection 

system is needed to verify that 

components are intact and that the 

system is functioning properly before 

the machine is operated. For example, 

some machine-mounted components 

may be mounted on the outer surface of 

a continuous mining machine and could 

be damaged when the machine contacts 

a rib or heavy material falls against the 

machine. The person designated to 

perform the check will walk around the 

machine to verify that machinemounted components are intact and the 

system is functioning properly. The 

check will also include observation of 

appropriate audible and visual warning 

signals. Operators can check that the 

system is functioning properly by 

approaching the machine with a minerwearable component and observing 

changes in the system’s warning signals 

as the miner-wearable component enters 

the warning and stop zones. 

MSHA believes that it is unnecessary 

to require written procedures for the 

check because existing training 

regulations require that the person 

designated to perform the check be 

trained to check the system. The check 

supplements the design requirement in 

final § 75.1732(b)(4) that prevents 

movement of the machine if any 

machine-mounted component is not 

functioning properly. The system may 

not be able to detect all types of damage, 

such as detached field generators, which 

could affect proper function. The check 

helps assure that machine-mounted 

components are positioned correctly 

and mounted properly on the machine 

and the system will warn miners and 

stop movement appropriately. Under 

existing § 48.7, miners who perform the 

required check must receive training in 

the safety and health aspects and safe 

work procedures of the task. 

In most cases, MSHA anticipates that 

the trained person designated to make 

the on-shift dust control parameter 

check, required under existing 

§ 75.362(a)(2), will also make the check 

of the proximity detection system. 

MSHA also anticipates that both checks 

would be performed at the same time. 

Unlike the examinations and tests 

required under existing § 75.512 for 

permissible equipment, it is not 

essential to require a person qualified to 

perform electrical work to conduct this 

check. 

Final § 75.1732(c)(2), like the 

proposal, requires that operators check 

for proper operation of miner-wearable 

components at the beginning of each 

shift that the components are to be used 

and correct defects before the 

components are used. 

Commenters recommended checking 

the miner-wearable component at the 

beginning of each shift for damage. One 

commenter recommended checking for 

sufficient power to work for the 

duration of the shift. A commenter 

stated that defective miner-wearable 

components should be replaced before 

that person goes underground. A 

commenter stated that it should be up 

to the mine operator to determine how 

often and when the miner-wearable 

component is checked for proper 

operation. Another commenter stated 

that the final rule should allow an 

operator to designate a person to check 

the miner-wearable component. 

After considering comments, MSHA 

determined that the miner-wearable 

components must be checked for proper 

operation at the beginning of each shift 

that the component is to be used. This 

requirement helps assure that the miner 

is protected before getting near a 

machine. MSHA anticipates that each 

miner equipped with a miner-wearable 

component will check the component to 

see that it is not damaged and has 

sufficient power. The proximity 

detection systems that use these 

components can only function properly 

if the miner-wearable components have 

sufficient power. 

MSHA intends that this check can be 

similar to the check that a miner 

performs on a cap lamp prior to the 

beginning of a shift. A mine operator, 

however, could also designate a person 

to check miner-wearable components 

before they are used. Mine operators 

must provide new task training, under 

30 CFR part 48, for miners who will be 

checking the miner-wearable 

components. If any defect is found, the 

final rule requires that it be corrected 

before the component is used. This 

helps assure that the miner-wearable 

component functions properly and 

reduces the risk of injuries and fatalities 

from miners’ exposure to pinning, 

crushing, and striking hazards. 

The final rule does not include 

proposed § 75.1732(c)(3). This proposed 

provision would have required the 

operator to designate a person under 

MSHA’s existing standard for qualified 

electricians to examine proximity 

detection systems for conformance with 

the performance requirements of this 

section at least every seven days and 

that defects in the proximity detection 

system be corrected before the machine 

is returned to service. 

A commenter stated that a trained, 

qualified maintenance person should 

examine the basic functions of 

proximity detection systems every seven 

days by checking zone sizes, system 

communication, and warning signals; 

examine at regular maintenance 

intervals and for each modification to 

the machine or environment; and 

perform the examination while the 

machine is not in service. This 

commenter stated that the maintenance 

person should fully understand how the 

system works. Other commenters stated 

that the electrical examination should 

take place on a weekly basis at the same 

time as the other electrical examinations 

required under § 75.512. A commenter 

also stated that requiring an 

examination each week is not needed. 

After considering comments, MSHA 

concluded that the examinations of 

proximity detection systems will take 

place with other electrical examinations 

required under existing § 75.512. MSHA 

determined that the proposed 

requirement to designate a qualified 

person under existing § 75.153 to 

examine proximity detection systems at 

least every seven days and correct 

defects is not necessary because the 

machine-mounted components are 

electric equipment and must be 

examined, tested, and properly 

maintained under existing § 75.512. The 

miner-wearable components are MSHAapproved intrinsically safe equipment 

and do not need to be examined in 

accordance with existing § 75.512. 

Existing § 75.512 requires electric 

equipment to be frequently examined, 

tested, and properly maintained by a 

qualified person to assure safe operating 

conditions. The examinations and tests 

required under existing § 75.512 must 

be made at least weekly under existing 

§ 75.512–2, and the qualified person 

performing the examinations and tests 

must meet the requirements to perform 

electrical work under existing § 75.153. 

Under existing § 75.512, when a 

potentially dangerous condition is 

found on electric equipment, such 

equipment must be removed from 

service until such condition is 

corrected. The on-shift check required 

in final § 75.1732(c)(1) helps assure that 

proximity detection systems function 

properly between the weekly 

examinations required under existing 

§ 75.512. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2197 

D. § 75.1732(d) Certifications and 

Records 

Final § 75.1732(d), like the proposal, 

establishes requirements for 

certifications and records for proximity 

detection systems. 

Final § 75.1732(d)(1), like the 

proposal, requires that at the completion 

of the check required under paragraph 

(c)(1) of this section, a certified person 

under existing § 75.100 certify by 

initials, date, and time that the check 

was conducted. Defects found as a result 

of the check under paragraph (c)(1) of 

this section, including corrective actions 

and dates of corrective actions, must be 

recorded. 

A commenter supported the proposed 

requirement that the mine operator 

record any defect and corrective action. 

Another commenter recommended that 

the record of any defect or corrective 

action be made at the end of the shift 

and kept in a book on the surface. 

Another commenter, however, 

supported the requirement to certify the 

check required in paragraph (c)(1), but 

stated there was no safety benefit to 

requiring a record of defects or 

corrective actions. Other commenters 

indicated that there is no need to 

require records specifically for 

proximity detection systems and that 

these records would be a burden. 

The certification in final paragraph 

(d)(1) helps assure compliance and 

provides miners on the section a means 

to confirm that the required check was 

made. MSHA anticipates that, in most 

cases, the person making the 

certification of the on-shift examination 

under existing § 75.362(g)(2) will also 

make the certification of this check at 

the same time. 

The record of defects and corrective 

actions as a result of the check required 

under final paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section must be made by the completion 

of the shift, which is consistent with the 

requirements for records of hazardous 

conditions in existing § 75.363(b). If no 

defect is found, no record is needed. 

The requirement in final paragraph 

(d)(1) of this section requires a record of 

defects and corrective actions. This 

record can be used to show a history of 

machine-mounted component defects 

that can alert miners, representatives of 

miners, mine management, 

manufacturers, and MSHA of recurring 

problems. 

Final § 75.1732(d)(2), like the 

proposal, requires the operator to record 

defects found as a result of the check of 

miner-wearable components under final 

paragraph (c)(2) of this section, 

including corrective actions and dates of 

corrective actions. 

A commenter supported the proposed 

requirement that the mine operator 

record any defect and corrective action, 

but also stated that the check of the 

miner-wearable component must be 

recorded. Another commenter stated 

that the record of any defect or 

corrective action be made at the end of 

the shift and kept in a book on the 

surface. A commenter also stated there 

was no safety benefit to requiring a 

record of defects or corrective actions. 

Other commenters indicated that there 

is no need to require records specifically 

for proximity detection systems and that 

these records would be a burden. 

The requirement in final 

§ 75.1732(d)(2) provides for a record of 

defects and corrective actions. This 

record can be used to show a history of 

miner-wearable component defects that 

can alert miners, representatives of 

miners, mine management, 

manufacturers, and MSHA of recurring 

problems. For miner-wearable 

components, no record is needed unless 

a defect is found. A certification of the 

check for proper operation of minerwearable components that is required 

under final § 75.1732(c)(2) is not 

necessary because miners can readily 

check to confirm that the component is 

working. 

The final rule does not include the 

provisions in proposed § 75.1732(d)(3). 

The proposal would have required that: 

(1) The operator make and retain 

records at the completion of the weekly 

examination under proposed 

§ 75.1732(c)(3); (2) the qualified person 

conducting the examination record and 

certify by signature and date that the 

examination was conducted; and (3) 

defects, including corrective actions and 

dates of corrective actions, be recorded. 

A commenter supported the proposed 

requirement but also stated that a 

maintenance supervisor should be 

required to countersign the record. 

Another commenter indicated that the 

electrical examination of proximity 

detection systems should be recorded 

consistent with the recordkeeping 

requirement under existing § 75.512 and 

that it would be unnecessary and 

burdensome for this record to include a 

record of defects found and corrective 

actions. Another commenter stated that 

maintaining separate records for weekly 

inspections of proximity detection 

systems is redundant to records already 

being maintained. Another commenter 

stated this requirement would increase 

the paperwork burden on a mine 

operator. 

After considering the comments, 

MSHA determined that a separate 

examination under proposed paragraph 

(c)(3) and existing requirements under 

§ 75.512 are redundant. Accordingly, 

the corresponding record requirement 

under proposed paragraph (d)(3) is not 

required by the final rule. As required 

under existing § 75.512, electric 

equipment must be frequently 

examined, tested, and properly 

maintained by a qualified person to 

assure safe operating conditions; and a 

record of this examination must be kept 

and made available to an authorized 

representative of the Secretary and to 

the miners. Consistent with MSHA 

policy, if dangerous conditions and 

corrective actions are not recorded, the 

records of weekly examinations of 

electric equipment are incomplete. 

Final § 75.1732(d)(3), like proposed 

§ 75.1732(d)(4), requires that the 

operator make and retain records of the 

persons trained in the installation and 

maintenance of proximity detection 

systems. 

One commenter stated that a record is 

necessary to assure that the person 

assigned to install and perform 

maintenance on proximity detection 

systems has been trained. Other 

commenters stated that this requirement 

would be redundant. One of these 

commenters stated that it would be 

redundant with existing § 75.159, which 

requires a list of all qualified persons 

designated to perform duties under part 

75. This commenter stated that MSHA 

Form 5000–23 (Certificate of Training) 

includes this information and that, due 

to this redundancy, the requirement in 

proposed paragraph (d)(4) of this section 

should not be included in the final rule. 

Other commenters indicated that this 

requirement would be impractical when 

the installation or maintenance is 

performed by a third party. Another 

commenter indicated this requirement 

would increase the paperwork burden 

for a mine operator. 

Final § 75.1732(d)(3) requires the 

mine operator to make a record of 

persons trained to install and perform 

maintenance on proximity detection 

systems. MSHA anticipates that many 

mine operators will train qualified 

persons, as defined by existing § 75.153, 

to install and perform maintenance on 

proximity detections systems; but, the 

mine operator may train another miner 

who is not included on the list required 

under existing § 75.159. A mine 

operator may make the record of the 

persons trained under final paragraph 

(d)(3) of this section using existing 

MSHA Form 5000–23. Consistent with 

existing practice, mine operators do not 

need to make and retain records of 

training for proximity detection system 

manufacturers’ employees who install 

or perform maintenance on their 

systems. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
2198 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Final § 75.1732(d)(4), like proposed 

§ 75.1732(d)(5), requires the operator to 

maintain records in a secure book or 

electronically in a secure computer 

system not susceptible to alteration. 

One commenter supported the 

proposal. Another commenter stated 

that this requirement should be 

removed because the underlying 

recordkeeping requirements in proposed 

paragraph (d) of this section are 

redundant. Another commenter stated 

that this requirement would create 

another record book for mine operators 

to maintain and that this would increase 

their paperwork burden. 

The records required under final 

§§ 75.1732(d)(1), (d)(2), and (d)(3), if 

recorded in a book, must be in a book 

designed to prevent the insertion of 

additional pages or the alteration of 

previously entered information in the 

record. Based on MSHA’s experience 

with other safety and health records, the 

Agency believes that records should be 

maintained so that they cannot be 

altered. In addition, electronic storage of 

information and access through 

computers is increasingly a common 

business practice in the mining 

industry. This provision permits the use 

of electronically stored records provided 

they are secure, not susceptible to 

alteration, and able to capture the 

information and signatures required. 

Care must be taken in the use of 

electronic records to assure that the 

secure computer system will not allow 

information to be overwritten after being 

entered. MSHA believes that electronic 

records meeting these criteria are 

practical and as reliable as paper 

records. MSHA also believes that once 

records are properly completed and 

reviewed, mine management can use 

them to evaluate whether the same 

conditions or problems, if any, are 

recurring, and whether corrective 

measures are effective. 

The final rule provides mine 

operators flexibility to maintain the 

records in a secure book or 

electronically in a secure computer 

system that they already use to satisfy 

existing recordkeeping requirements. 

Final § 75.1732(d)(5), like proposed 

§ 75.1732(d)(6), requires that the 

operator retain records for at least one 

year and make them available for 

inspection by authorized representatives 

of the Secretary and representatives of 

miners. 

A commenter supported the proposal 

but stated that hard copies of this 

information must be made available if 

the lack of computer skills would 

prohibit a miner from viewing this 

information. Another commenter stated 

that this requirement should be 

removed because the underlying 

recordkeeping requirements in 

paragraph (d) of this section are 

redundant with existing requirements. 

This commenter stated that this 

requirement would increase a mine 

operator’s paperwork burden. 

This provision applies to the records 

required under final §§ 75.1732(d)(1), 

(d)(2), and (d)(3). These records must be 

made available for inspection to 

representatives of miners and MSHA. 

The operator may provide access 

electronically or by providing paper 

copies of records. MSHA believes that 

keeping records for one year provides a 

history of the conditions at the mine to 

alert miners, representatives of miners, 

mine management, manufacturers, and 

MSHA of recurring problems. 

E. New Technology 

The final rule does not include 

proposed § 75.1732(e) that would have 

addressed technologically advanced 

proximity detection systems because the 

final rule allows for flexibility in system 

design. The final rule is performancebased and does not require specific 

distances for stopping the machine or 

for warning miners. Proposed 

§ 75.1732(e) would have provided that 

mine operators or manufacturers could 

apply to MSHA for acceptance of a 

proximity detection system that 

incorporates new technology. 

A commenter stated that it was 

unclear whether proposed § 75.1732(e) 

refers to approval of a petition for 

modification or a way for MSHA’s 

Approval and Certification Center 

(A&CC) to approve a proximity 

detection system. A commenter was 

uncertain as to how this provision 

would apply to manufacturers. Another 

commenter stated that MSHA should 

clarify the scope of this provision and 

provide testing requirements to assure 

proximity detection systems are safe 

and effective for their intended use. 

Commenters stated that MSHA must 

accept new technology if (1) it meets 

current permissibility requirements, (2) 

performs the same function as already 

accepted systems, or (3) is as safe as the 

proposed requirements. 

Proposed § 75.1732(e) would have 

addressed technologically advanced 

proximity detection systems that did not 

meet the prescriptive requirements for 

causing a machine to stop no closer than 

3 feet from a miner and for providing an 

audible or visual warning signal when 

the machine is 5 feet and closer to a 

miner. Many comments to proposed 

§§ 75.1732(b)(1) and (b)(2) stated the 

Agency should change requirements to 

a performance-based approach. The 

performance-based requirements in this 

final rule allow for flexibility in system 

design, eliminating the need for the 

proposed new technology provision. 

III. Regulatory Economic Analysis 

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563: 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess all costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). Executive Order 13563 

emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, of 

reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, 

and of promoting flexibility. To comply 

with these Executive Orders, MSHA has 

prepared a Regulatory Economic 

Analysis (REA) for the final rule. The 

REA contains supporting data and 

explanation for the summary 

information presented in this preamble, 

including the covered mining industry, 

costs and benefits, feasibility, small 

business impacts, and Paperwork 

Reduction Act requirements. 

On April 23, 2014, the State of West 

Virginia issued a rule governing 

proximity detection systems, effective 

July 1, 2014. The rule requires, among 

other things, that proximity detection 

systems be installed on place-change 

continuous mining machines in 

underground sections of coal mines 

according to a 34-month phase-in 

schedule. The regulatory economic 

analysis addresses cost and benefit 

changes to this rule due to the West 

Virginia Rule in Chapter 5, Summary of 

Adjustments for West Virginia Rule. 

The Commonwealth of Virginia 

issued a memorandum to coal mine 

operators (DM–14–03, August 18, 2014) 

stating that, effective October 1, 2014, 

all remote-control operated continuous 

mining machines be equipped with 

proximity detection systems or use a 

designated spotter during equipment 

moves. 

MSHA anticipates that mine operators 

in the Commonwealth of Virginia would 

opt to use a designated spotter instead 

of incurring the expense of installing 

proximity detection systems on 

continuous mining machines. The 

Agency estimates that the cost of 

diverting resources to assure that there 

is a designated spotter for those 

continuous mining machines during 

equipment moves would be de minimis. 

MSHA does not address Virginia’s 

memorandum in the regulatory 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2199 

economic analysis (REA) because it does 

not affect the impact of the final rule. 

MSHA received comments on the 

preliminary regulatory economic 

analysis and those comments are 

addressed in the REA. The REA can be 

accessed electronically at http://

www.msha.gov/REGSINF5.HTM or 

http://www.regulations.gov. A copy of 

the REA can be obtained from MSHA’s 

Office of Standards, Regulations and 

Variances at the address in the 

Availability of Information section of 

this preamble. 

Under E.O. 12866, a significant 

regulatory action meets at least one of 

the following conditions: Having an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more, creating a serious 

inconsistency or interfering with an 

action of another agency, materially 

altering the budgetary impact of 

entitlements or the rights of entitlement 

recipients, or raising novel legal or 

policy issues. The Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) has determined that 

this final rule would be a significant 

regulatory action because it raises novel 

legal or policy issues. 

B. Population at Risk 

The final rule applies to all 

underground coal mines in the United 

States. In 2013, there were 

approximately 326 active underground 

coal mines using continuous mining 

machines employing approximately 

42,314 miners (excluding office 

workers). 

C. Net Benefits 

Under the Mine Act, MSHA is not 

required to use estimated net benefits as 

the basis for its decision. At a 7 percent 

discount rate over 10 years, the 

estimated annualized values for net 

benefits of this rule after adjusting for 

West Virginia are $1.3 million; benefits 

are $6.0 million and costs are $4.7 

million. At a 3 percent discount rate 

over 10 years, the estimated annualized 

values for net benefits of this rule after 

adjusting for West Virginia are $1.8 

million; benefits are $6.5 million and 

annualized costs are $4.7 million. 

MSHA anticipates several benefits 

from the final rule that were not 

quantified due to a lack of definitive 

information. For example, MSHA 

anticipates that the final rule will result 

in additional savings to mine operators 

by avoiding the production delays 

typically associated with mine 

accidents. Pinning, crushing, or striking 

accidents can disrupt production at a 

mine during the time it takes to remove 

the injured miner, investigate the cause 

of the accident, and clear the accident 

site. Such delays can last for a shift or 

more. Factors such as lost wages, 

delayed production, and other 

miscellaneous expenses, could result in 

significant costs; however, MSHA has 

not quantified these savings due to a 

lack of specific information. The 

monetized benefits and costs are 

explained further in sections D and E. 

D. Benefits 

The final rule will significantly 

improve safety protections for 

underground coal miners by reducing 

their risk of being crushed, pinned, or 

struck by continuous mining machines. 

MSHA reviewed the Agency’s 

investigation reports for all continuous 

mining machine accidents that occurred 

from 1984 through 2013 and determined 

that the use of proximity detection 

systems could have prevented 34 

fatalities and 238 nonfatal injuries 

involving pinning, crushing, or striking 

accidents with continuous mining 

machines. From 2010 through 2013, six 

underground coal miners working in 

close proximity to continuous mining 

machines died from pinning, crushing, 

or striking accidents. MSHA’s review 

concluded that the latest 15 years of 

data was the most appropriate data to 

project the number of incidents over the 

next 10 years. Based on the data, MSHA 

projects that the rule will prevent 

approximately 49 injuries and 9 deaths 

over the next 10 years. 

To estimate the monetary values of 

the reductions in deaths and nonfatal 

injuries, MSHA uses an analysis of the 

imputed values based on a Willingnessto-Pay approach. This approach relies 

on the theory of compensating wage 

differentials (i.e., the wage premiums 

paid to workers to accept the risk 

associated with various jobs) in the 

labor market. A number of studies have 

shown a correlation between higher job 

risk and higher wages, suggesting that 

employees demand monetary 

compensation in return for incurring 

greater risk. The benefit of preventing a 

fatality is measured by what is 

conventionally called the Value of a 

Statistical Life (VSL), defined as the 

additional cost that individuals would 

be willing to bear for improvements in 

safety (that is, reductions in risks) that, 

in the aggregate, reduce the expected 

number of fatalities by one. 

Under the proposed rule, the value of 

deaths and injuries prevented were 

based on a 2003 meta-analysis by 

Viscusi & Aldy. Viscusi and Aldy did an 

analysis of several studies that use a 

Willingness-to-Pay methodology to 

estimate the imputed value of lifesaving programs. Updating the 2003 

values for inflation yields an estimate in 

2013 dollars of $8.7 million for each 

fatality prevented and $65,000 for each 

nonfatal injury prevented for the lowest 

estimate. 

For the final rule, MSHA revised the 

Agency’s approach for monetizing the 

value of fatalities prevented to provide 

a range of VSLs. The regulatory 

economic analysis provides more detail; 

but, in summary, MSHA estimated three 

alternatives for VSL. 

Low Benefit Estimate: The low 

estimate of $8.7 million is from the 2003 

Viscusi and Aldy estimate used in the 

proposed rule. However, this estimate 

does not include adjustments for real 

income changes. 

Primary Benefit Estimate: MSHA used 

a primary estimate of $9.2 million that 

is based on the new research and 

guidance by the Department of 

Transportation (DOT). MSHA reviewed 

DOT’s findings and adjusted the VSL for 

real income growth. With the 

adjustment, the VSL reaches 

approximately $10 million in the 10th 

year. 

High Benefit Estimate: MSHA used a 

high estimate of $11.1 million based on 

Viscusi’s 2013 article that emphasizes, 

when possible, that labor characteristics 

should be used to develop VSLs. The 

2013 article includes information that 

mining has one of the highest fatality 

rates and that estimates should capture 

industry or occupation specific 

information. As in the primary estimate, 

MSHA also applied the real income 

growth each year to generate VSLs for 

the 10 years after the final rule is 

effective. This provides a final value 

after 10 years of approximately $12 

million. 

More detailed information about how 

MSHA estimated the primary benefits 

and alternate benefits estimates are 

available in the REA supporting this 

final rule. 

E. Compliance Costs 

MSHA estimated costs of the final 

rule based on the analysis of the most 

likely actions that operators will need to 

take to comply with the final rule. 

MSHA estimates that proximity 

detection systems purchases and 

installations in underground coal mines 

will occur over 3 years with 20 percent 

installed in the first year the rule is in 

effect, an additional 40 percent installed 

in the second year, and the remaining 

40 percent installed in the third year. 

MSHA estimates a useful life of 10 years 

for all machine-mounted components of 

proximity detection systems and 5 years 

for miner-wearable components. 

MSHA estimates that, after adjusting 

for the West Virginia Rule, the total 

undiscounted cost of the final rule over 

a 10-year period is $46.7 million, $41.3 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
2200 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

million at a 3 percent rate, and $35.7 

million at a 7 percent rate. The 

corresponding values annualized over 

10 years are $4.7 million 

(undiscounted), $4.7 million (3 percent), 

and $4.7 million (7 percent). 

IV. Feasibility 

The requirements of the final rule are 

both technologically and economically 

feasible. 

A. Technological Feasibility 

The final rule is technologically 

feasible. The final rule is not 

technology-forcing and does not involve 

new scientific or engineering 

knowledge. The technology necessary to 

meet the requirements of the final rule 

already exists, is commercially 

available, and is in use in underground 

coal mines. By allowing mine operators 

to phase in the installation of proximity 

detection systems over a 36-month 

period, the final rule provides coal mine 

operators sufficient time to obtain 

necessary modification to the existing 

technology, obtain necessary approvals, 

install proximity detection systems on 

continuous mining machines, and train 

miners. 

B. Economic Feasibility 

MSHA has traditionally used a 

revenue screening test—whether the 

estimated compliance costs of a 

standard are less than one percent of 

revenues, or are negative (e.g., provide 

net cost savings) to establish 

presumptively that compliance with the 

standard is economically feasible for the 

mining industry. Based on this test, 

MSHA has concluded that the 

requirements of the final rule are 

economically feasible. 

The estimated annualized compliance 

cost to underground coal mine operators 

is $4.7 million. This represents less than 

one-tenth of one percent of total annual 

revenue of $23.1 billion ($4.7 million 

costs/$23.1 billion revenue) for all 

underground coal mines. Since the 

estimated annualized compliance cost is 

below one percent of estimated annual 

revenue, MSHA concludes that the final 

rule is economically feasible for the 

underground coal industry. 

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA) of 1980, as amended by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA), MSHA has 

analyzed the compliance cost impact of 

the final rule on small entities. Based on 

that analysis, MSHA certifies that the 

final rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The factual 

basis for this certification is presented 

in Chapter 7, Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis, of the REA and is summarized 

below. 

A. Definition of a Small Mine 

Under the RFA, in analyzing the 

impact of a rule on small entities, 

MSHA must use the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA’s) definition for a 

small entity or, after consultation with 

the SBA Office of Advocacy, establish 

an alternative definition for the mining 

industry by publishing that definition in 

the Federal Register for notice and 

comment. Because the Agency has not 

established an alternative definition, 

MSHA is required to use SBA’s 

definition. The SBA defines a small 

entity in the mining industry as an 

establishment with 500 or fewer 

employees. 

MSHA has also examined the impact 

of the final rule on mines with fewer 

than 20 employees, which MSHA and 

the mining community have 

traditionally referred to as small mines. 

These small mines differ from larger 

mines not only in the number of 

employees, but also in economies of 

scale in material produced, in the type 

and amount of production equipment, 

and in supply inventory. Therefore, 

their costs of complying with MSHA’s 

rules and the impact of the Agency’s 

rules on them will also tend to be 

different. 

This analysis complies with the 

requirements of the RFA for an analysis 

of the impact on ‘‘small entities’’ while 

continuing MSHA’s traditional 

definition of ‘‘small mines.’’ 

B. Factual Basis for Certification 

MSHA’s analysis of the economic 

impact on small entities begins with a 

screening analysis. The screening 

compares the estimated yearly costs of 

the final rule for small entities to their 

estimated annual revenue. When 

estimated costs are less than one percent 

of estimated revenues for small entities, 

MSHA believes it is generally 

appropriate to conclude that the final 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. If the 

estimated cost is equal to or exceeds one 

percent of revenue, MSHA investigates 

whether further analysis is required. 

C. Derivation of Revenues and Costs for 

Mines 

MSHA calculated the revenue for 

underground coal mines from data on 

coal prices and production. The average 

open market U.S. sales price of 

underground coal for 2013 was $67.56 

per ton (estimated from Department of 

Energy (DOE), Energy Information 

Administration (EIA), Annual Coal 

Report 2012, December 2013, pg. 48, 

adjusted by the 2013 GDP deflator from 

the Bureau of Economic Analysis 

(BEA)). 

For mines excluding West Virginia, 

with 1–19 employees, 2013 

underground coal revenue was $112 

million (1.7 million tons × $67.56 per 

ton). For mines with 1–500 employees, 

2013 underground coal revenue was $12 

billion (175.4 million tons × $67.56 per 

ton). Total 2013 underground coal 

revenue, excluding West Virginia, was 

$17.5 billion. The 2013 total 

underground coal revenue including 

West Virginia was $23.1 billion. 

D. Screening Analysis for Underground 

Coal Mines 

The estimated annualized cost of the 

final rule for underground coal mines 

with 1–19 employees is approximately 

$0.5 million, which represents 

approximately 0.5 percent of annual 

revenues. 

When applying SBA’s definition of a 

small mine, the estimated annualized 

cost of the final rule for underground 

coal mines with 1–500 employees, 

excluding West Virginia, is 

approximately $4.1 million, which 

represents less than one-tenth of one 

percent of annual revenue. 

Table 1 shows MSHA’s estimate of the 

annualized cost of the final rule 

compared to mine revenue, by mine 

size. MSHA has provided, in the REA 

accompanying this final rule, a 

complete analysis of the cost impact. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2201 

TABLE 1—COST OF FINAL RULE COMPARED TO MINE REVENUES FOR UNDERGROUND COAL MINES (EXCLUDING WEST

VIRGINIA), BY MINE SIZE

Mine size 

(employees) 

Number of 

Mines 

Annualized cost of 

final rule 

(in millions) 

Annual revenues 

(in millions) 

Annual cost 

per mine 

Cost of 

final rule as 

percent of 

revenues 

1–19 ......................................................................... 45 $0.5 $112 $11,111 0.5 

1–500 ....................................................................... 209 4.1 11,848 19,617 <0.1 

All Mines .................................................................. 220 4.7 17,518 21,364 <0.1 

Based on this analysis, MSHA has 

determined that the final rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small 

underground coal mines. 

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

A. Summary 

The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

provides for the Federal government’s 

collection, use, and dissemination of 

information. The goals of the PRA 

include minimizing paperwork and 

reporting burdens and ensuring the 

maximum possible utility from the 

information that is collected (44 U.S.C. 

3501). The information collections 

contained in this final rule are 

submitted for review under the PRA to 

OMB, Control Number 1219–0148. The 

final rule contains minor adjustments to 

burden hours for an existing paperwork 

package with OMB Control Number 

1219–0066. MSHA does not include 

estimated burden hours and the cost of 

revising training plans on an annual 

basis because this burden is accounted 

for under the OMB Control Number 

1219–0009. Underground coal mine 

operators routinely revise their training 

plan at least yearly in accordance with 

30 CFR part 48. 

MSHA estimates that in the first 3 

years the final rule is in effect, the 

mining community will incur 1,182 

annual burden hours with related 

annual burden hour costs of 

approximately $115,952 and other 

annual costs related to the information 

collection of approximately $22,359. A 

detailed explanation of the burden 

hours and related costs are in the 

Paperwork Reduction Act section of the 

REA for this final rule. 

B. Procedural Details 

The information collection package 

for this final rule was submitted to OMB 

for review under 44 U.S.C. 3504, 

paragraph (h) of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, as amended. 

MSHA requested comment on its 

estimates for information collection 

requirements in the proposal and 

responded to these comments earlier in 

the preamble and in the REA. 

The regulated community is not 

required to respond to any collection of 

information unless it displays a current, 

valid, OMB control number. (See 5 CFR 

1320.5(a) and 1320.6.) MSHA displays 

the OMB control numbers for the 

information collection requirements in 

its regulations in 30 CFR part 3. The 

total information collection burden is 

summarized as follows: 

• Title of Collection: Testing, 

Evaluation, and Approval of Mining 

Products. OMB Control Number: 1219– 

0066. 

• Title of Collection: Training Plans 

and Records of Training, for 

Underground Miners and Miners 

Working at Surface Mines and Surface 

Areas of Underground Mines. OMB 

Control Number: 1219–0009. 

• Title of Collection: Proximity 

Detection Systems for Continuous 

Mining Machines in Underground Coal 

Mines. OMB Control Number: 1219– 

0148. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY CROSSWALK OF RULE, REA COST ANALYSIS, AND OMB CONTROL NUMBER

Collection burden OMB No. 

Annual 

burden 

hours 

Annual burden 

hours cost 

Other annual 

costs to 

respondents 

§ 75.1732(a) ..................................................................................................... 1219–0066 189 $18,824 $22,359 

§ 75.1732(d)(1) ................................................................................................. 1219–0148 958 95,417 0 

§ 75.1732(d)(2) ................................................................................................. 1219–0148 33 1,654 0 

§ 75.1732(d)(3) ................................................................................................. 1219–0148 2 57 0

Total .......................................................................................................... ........................ 1,182 115,952 22,359 

Affected Public: Private Sector 

Businesses or Other For-Profit 

Businesses. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

109. 

Estimated Number of Responses: 

315,333. 

Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 

1,182. 

Estimated Hour Burden Costs: 

$115,952. 

Estimated Annual Burden Costs (nonhours) Related to the Information 

Collection Package: $22,359. 

MSHA received comments on the 

information collection requirements 

contained in the proposed rule. The 

comments are addressed in the 

applicable sections of Section II, the 

Section-by-Section Analysis of this 

preamble, and in the Supporting 

Statement for the information collection 

requirements accompanying this final 

rule. The Information Collection 

Supporting Statement is available at 

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/

PRAMain, on MSHA’s Web site at 

http://www.msha.gov/regspwork.htm, 

and at http://www.regulations.gov. A 

copy of the Supporting Statement is also 

available from MSHA by request to 

Sheila McConnell at 

mcconnell.sheila.a@dol.gov, by phone 

request to 202–693–9440, or by 

facsimile to 202–693–9441. 

VII. Other Regulatory Considerations 

A. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 

MSHA has reviewed the final rule 

under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). 

MSHA has determined that the final 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
2202 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

rule does not include any federal 

mandate that may result in increased 

expenditures by State, local, or tribal 

governments; nor does it increase 

private sector expenditures by more 

than $100 million (adjusted for 

inflation) in any one year or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. Accordingly, the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

requires no further Agency action or 

analysis. 

B. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

The final rule does not have 

‘‘federalism implications’’ because it 

does not ‘‘have substantial direct effects 

on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ 

Accordingly, under E.O. 13132, no 

further Agency action or analysis is 

required. 

C. The Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act of 

1999: Assessment of Federal 

Regulations and Policies on Families 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act of 1999 (5 U.S.C. 601 note) requires 

agencies to assess the impact of Agency 

action on family well-being. MSHA has 

determined that the final rule has no 

effect on family stability or safety, 

marital commitment, parental rights and 

authority, or income or poverty of 

families and children. Accordingly, 

MSHA certifies that this final rule does 

not impact family well-being. 

D. Executive Order 12630: Government 

Actions and Interference With 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights 

The final rule does not implement a 

policy with takings implications. 

Accordingly, under E.O. 12630, no 

further Agency action or analysis is 

required. 

E. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice 

Reform 

The final rule is written to provide a 

clear legal standard for affected conduct 

and was carefully reviewed to eliminate 

drafting errors and ambiguities, so as to 

minimize litigation and undue burden 

on the Federal court system. 

Accordingly, the final rule would meet 

the applicable standards provided in 

section 3 of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform. 

F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The final rule does not adversely 

impact children. Accordingly, under 

E.O. 13045, no further Agency action or 

analysis is required. 

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This final rule does not have ‘‘tribal 

implications’’ because it does not ‘‘have 

substantial direct effects on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian tribes.’’ 

Accordingly, under E.O. 13175, no 

further Agency action or analysis is 

required. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

Executive Order 13211 requires 

agencies to publish a statement of 

energy effects when a rule has a 

significant energy action that adversely 

affects energy supply, distribution or 

use. MSHA has reviewed this final rule 

for its energy effects because the final 

rule applies to the underground coal 

mining sector. Because this final rule 

results in annualized costs of 

approximately $4.7 million to the 

underground coal mining industry, 

relative to annual revenues of $23.1 

billion in 2013, MSHA has concluded 

that it would not be a significant energy 

action because it is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. 

Accordingly, under this analysis, no 

further Agency action or analysis is 

required. 

I. Executive Order 13272: Proper 

Consideration of Small Entities in 

Agency Rulemaking 

MSHA has reviewed the final rule to 

assess and take appropriate account of 

its potential impact on small businesses, 

small governmental jurisdictions, and 

small organizations. MSHA has 

determined and certified that the final 

rule does not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 75 

Mine safety and health, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Underground coal mines. 

Dated: January 8, 2015. 

Joseph A. Main, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety 

and Health. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble and under the authority of the 

Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 

1977, as amended, chapter I of title 30 

of the Code of Federal Regulations is 

amended as follows: 

PART 75—MANDATORY SAFETY 

STANDARDS—UNDERGROUND COAL 

MINES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 75 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811, 813(h), 957. 

■ 2. Add § 75.1732 to subpart R to read 

as follows: 

§ 75.1732 Proximity detection systems. 

Operators must install proximity 

detection systems on certain mobile 

machines. 

(a) Machines covered. Operators must 

equip continuous mining machines, 

except full-face continuous mining 

machines, with proximity detection 

systems by the following dates. For 

proximity detection systems with 

miner-wearable components, the mine 

operator must provide a miner-wearable 

component to be worn by each miner on 

the working section by the following 

dates. 

(1) Continuous mining machines 

manufactured after March 16, 2015 must 

meet the requirements in this section no 

later than November 16, 2015. These 

machines must meet the requirements 

in this section when placed in service 

with a proximity detection system. 

(2) Continuous mining machines 

manufactured and equipped with a 

proximity detection system on or before 

March 16, 2015 must meet the 

requirements in this section no later 

than September 16, 2016. 

(3) Continuous mining machines 

manufactured and not equipped with a 

proximity detection system on or before 

March 16, 2015 must meet the 

requirements in this section no later 

than March 16, 2018. These machines 

must meet the requirements in this 

section when placed in service with a 

proximity detection system. 

(b) Requirements for a proximity 

detection system. A proximity detection 

system includes machine-mounted 

components and miner-wearable 

components. The system must: 

(1) Cause a machine, which is 

tramming from place-to-place or 

repositioning, to stop before contacting 

a miner except for a miner who is in the 

on-board operator’s compartment; 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2203 

(2) Provide an audible and visual 

warning signal on the miner-wearable 

component and a visual warning signal 

on the machine that alert miners before 

the system causes a machine to stop. 

These warning signals must be 

distinguishable from other signals; 

(3) Provide a visual signal on the 

machine that indicates the machinemounted components are functioning 

properly; 

(4) Prevent movement of the machine 

if any machine-mounted component of 

the system is not functioning properly. 

However, a system with any machinemounted component that is not 

functioning properly may allow 

machine movement if it provides an 

audible or visual warning signal, 

distinguishable from other signals, 

during movement. Such movement is 

permitted only for purposes of 

relocating the machine from an unsafe 

location for repair; 

(5) Be installed to prevent interference 

that adversely affects performance of 

any electrical system; and 

(6) Be installed and maintained in 

proper operating condition by a person 

trained in the installation and 

maintenance of the system. 

(c) Proximity detection system checks. 

Operators must: 

(1) Designate a person who must 

perform a check of machine-mounted 

components of the proximity detection 

system to verify that components are 

intact, that the system is functioning 

properly, and take action to correct 

defects— 

(i) At the beginning of each shift when 

the machine is to be used; or 

(ii) Immediately prior to the time the 

machine is to be operated if not in use 

at the beginning of a shift; or 

(iii) Within 1 hour of a shift change 

if the shift change occurs without an 

interruption in production. 

(2) Check for proper operation of 

miner-wearable components at the 

beginning of each shift that the 

components are to be used and correct 

defects before the components are used. 

(d) Certifications and records. The 

operator must make and retain 

certifications and records as follows: 

(1) At the completion of the check of 

machine-mounted components required 

under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, a 

certified person under § 75.100 must 

certify by initials, date, and time that 

the check was conducted. Defects found 

as a result of the check, including 

corrective actions and dates of 

corrective actions, must be recorded 

before the end of the shift; 

(2) Make a record of the defects found 

as a result of the check of minerwearable components required under 

paragraph (c)(2) of this section, 

including corrective actions and dates of 

corrective actions; 

(3) Make a record of the persons 

trained in the installation and 

maintenance of proximity detection 

systems required under paragraph (b)(6) 

of this section; 

(4) Maintain records in a secure book 

or electronically in a secure computer 

system not susceptible to alteration; and 

(5) Retain records for at least one year 

and make them available for inspection 

by authorized representatives of the 

Secretary and representatives of miners. 

[FR Doc. 2015–00319 Filed 1–13–15; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4510–43–P 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2