Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules 42757 

necessary to avoid an imminent hazard 

to the public safety. As provided in this 

subsection, the Attorney General may, 

by order, schedule a substance in 

Schedule I on a temporary basis. Such 

an order may not be issued before the 

expiration of 30 days from (1) the 

publication of a notice in the Federal 

Register of the intention to issue such 

order and the grounds upon which such 

order is to be issued, and (2) the date 

that notice of the proposed temporary 

scheduling order is transmitted to the 

Assistant Secretary of HHS. 21 U.S.C. 

811(h)(1). 

Inasmuch as section 201(h) of the 

CSA directs that temporary scheduling 

actions be issued by order and sets forth 

the procedures by which such orders are 

to be issued, the DEA believes that the 

notice and comment requirements of 

section 553 of the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, do 

not apply to this notice of intent. In the 

alternative, even assuming that this 

notice of intent might be subject to 

section 553 of the APA, the 

Administrator finds that there is good 

cause to forgo the notice and comment 

requirements of section 553, as any 

further delays in the process for 

issuance of temporary scheduling orders 

would be impracticable and contrary to 

the public interest in view of the 

manifest urgency to avoid an imminent 

hazard to the public safety. 

Although the DEA believes this notice 

of intent to issue a temporary 

scheduling order is not subject to the 

notice and comment requirements of 

section 553 of the APA, the DEA notes 

that in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 

811(h)(4), the Administrator took into 

consideration comments submitted by 

the Assistant Secretary in response to 

notice that DEA transmitted to the 

Assistant Secretary pursuant to section 

811(h)(4). 

Further, the DEA believes that this 

notice of intent is not a ‘‘rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 601(2), and, 

accordingly, is not subject to the 

requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA). The requirements 

for the preparation of an initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis in 5 U.S.C. 

603(a) are not applicable where, as here, 

the DEA is not required by section 553 

of the APA or any other law to publish 

a general notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

Additionally, this action is not a 

significant regulatory action as defined 

by Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review), section 3(f), and, 

accordingly, this action has not been 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget. 

This action will 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. Therefore, in 

accordance with Executive Order 13132 

(Federalism) it is determined that this 

action does not have sufficient 

federalism implications to warrant the 

preparation of a Federalism Assessment. 

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 1308 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Drug traffic control, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set out above, the DEA 

hereby provides notice of its intent to 

temporarily amend 21 CFR part 1308 as 

follows: 

PART 1308—SCHEDULES OF 

CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1308 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), 

unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. In § 1308.11, add paragraphs (h)(19) 

through (21) to read as follows: 

§ 1308.11 Schedule I. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(19) N-(2-fluorophenyl)-N-(1- 

phenethylpiperidin-4-yl)propionamide, 

its isomers, esters, ethers, salts and salts 

of isomers, esters and ethers (Other 

names: ortho-fluorofentanyl, 2- 

fluorofentanyl)—(9816) 

(20) N-(1-phenethylpiperidin-4-yl)-Nphenyltetrahydrofuran-2-carboxamide, 

its isomers, esters, ethers, salts and salts 

of isomers, esters and ethers (Other 

name: tetrahydrofuranyl fentanyl)— 

(9843) 

(21) 2-methoxy-N-(1- 

phenethylpiperidin-4-yl)-Nphenylacetamide, its isomers, esters, 

ethers, salts and salts of isomers, esters 

and ethers (Other name: methoxyacetyl 

fentanyl)—(9825) 

Dated: August 26, 2017. 

Chuck Rosenberg, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2017–19283 Filed 9–11–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Mine Safety and Health Administration 

30 CFR Parts 56 and 57 

[Docket No. MSHA–2014–0030] 

RIN 1219–AB87 

Examinations of Working Places in 

Metal and Nonmetal Mines 

AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health 

Administration, Labor. 

ACTION: Proposed rule, limited 

reopening of the rulemaking record; 

notice of public hearings; close of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: The Mine Safety and Health 

Administration (MSHA) proposes to 

amend the Agency’s final rule on 

examinations of working places in metal 

and nonmetal mines that was published 

in January 2017. The proposed changes 

would require that an examination of 

the working place be conducted before 

work begins or as miners begin work in 

that place, and that the examination 

record include descriptions of adverse 

conditions that are not corrected 

promptly and the dates of corrective 

action for these conditions. The 

proposed rule would provide mine 

operators additional flexibility in 

managing their safety and health 

programs and reduce regulatory burdens 

without reducing the protections 

afforded miners. 

DATES: MSHA is reopening the comment 

period to solicit comments on limited 

changes to the final rule published on 

January 23, 2017 (82 FR 7695), effective 

May 23, 2017, and delayed on May 22, 

2017 (82 FR 23139), until October 2, 

2017 (82 FR 23139). 

Comment date: Comments must be 

received or postmarked by midnight 

Eastern Standard Time (EST) on 

November 13, 2017. 

Hearing dates: October 24, 2017, 

October 26, 2017, October 31, 2017, and 

November 2, 2017. The locations are 

listed in the Public Hearings section in 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments and 

informational materials, identified by 

RIN 1219–AB87 or Docket No. MSHA– 

2014–0030, by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal E-Rulemaking Portal: 

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

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: zzMSHA-comments@

dol.gov. 

• Mail: MSHA, Office of Standards, 

Regulations, and Variances, 201 12th 


pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
42758 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

Street South, Suite 4E401, Arlington, 

Virginia 22202–5452. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: 201 12th 

Street South, Suite 4E401, Arlington, 

Virginia, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. Sign in at the receptionist’s 

desk on the 4th floor East, Suite 4E401. 

• Fax: 202–693–9441. 

Information Collection Requirements: 

Comments concerning the information 

collection requirements of this proposed 

rule must be clearly identified with RIN 

1219–AB87 or Docket No. MSHA–2014– 

0030, and sent to both MSHA and the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). Comments to MSHA may be 

sent by one of the methods in the 

ADDRESSES section above. Comments to 

OMB may be sent by mail addressed to 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, New Executive Office Building, 

725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 

20503, Attn: Desk Officer for MSHA, or 

via email oira_submissions@

omb.eop.gov. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include RIN 1219–AB87 or Docket No. 

MSHA–2014–0030. Do not include 

personal information that you do not 

want publicly disclosed; MSHA will 

post all comments without change, 

including any personal information 

provided. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read comments received, go to https:// 

www.regulations.gov or https://

www.msha.gov/currentcomments.asp. 

To read background documents, go to 

https://www.regulations.gov. Review the 

docket in person at MSHA, Office of 

Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 

201 12th Street South, Arlington, 

Virginia, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. Sign in at the receptionist’s 

desk on the 4th floor East, Suite 4E401. 

Email Notification: To subscribe to 

receive email notification when MSHA 

publishes rulemaking documents in the 

Federal Register, go to https://

www.msha.gov/subscriptions. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sheila A. McConnell, Director, Office of 

Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 

MSHA, at mcconnell.sheila.a@dol.gov 

(email), 202–693–9440 (voice), or 202– 

693–9441 (fax). These are not toll-free 

numbers. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

A. Public Hearings 

MSHA will hold four public hearings 

on the proposed rule to provide the 

public with an opportunity to present 

oral statements, written comments, and 

other information on this rulemaking. 

The public hearings will begin at 9 a.m. 

and end after the last presenter speaks, 

and in any event not later than 5 p.m., 

on the following dates at the locations 

indicated: 

Date/time Location Contact No. 

October 24, 2017, 9 a.m ......... Mine Safety and Health Administration Headquarters, 201 12th Street South, 7 West Conference Rooms, Arlington, VA.(202) 693–9440 

October 26, 2017, 9 a.m ......... 75 South West Temple, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 ................................................................... (801) 531–0800 

October 31, 2017, 9 a.m ......... Sheraton Birmingham Hotel, 2101 Richard Arrington Jr. Boulevard North, Birmingham, AL 

35203.

(205) 324–5000 

November 2, 2017, 9 a.m ....... Wyndham Pittsburgh University Center, 100 Lytton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15213 .................... (412) 682–6200 

The hearings will begin with an 

opening statement from MSHA, 

followed by an opportunity for members 

of the public to make oral presentations. 

Speakers and other attendees may 

present information to MSHA for 

inclusion in the rulemaking record. The 

hearings will be conducted in an 

informal manner. Formal rules of 

evidence or cross examination will not 

apply. 

A verbatim transcript of the 

proceedings will be prepared and made 

a part of the rulemaking record. Copies 

of the transcript will be available to the 

public. The transcript may also be 

viewed on MSHA’s Web site at https:// 

arlweb.msha.gov/currentcomments.asp, 

under Comments on Public Rule 

Making. 

B. Regulatory History 

On January 23, 2017, MSHA 

published a final rule, Examinations of 

Working Places in Metal and Nonmetal 

Mines (‘‘2017 rule’’) in the Federal 

Register (FR) amending the Agency’s 

standards for the examination of 

working places in metal and nonmetal 

mines. 82 FR 7680. The 2017 rule was 

scheduled to become effective on May 

23, 2017. On March 27, 2017, MSHA 

published a proposed rule to delay the 

effective date of the 2017 rule to July 24, 

2017. 82 FR 15173. On May 22, 2017, 

MSHA published a final rule delaying 

the effective date of the 2017 rule until 

October 2, 2017. 82 FR 23139. 

Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 

Register, MSHA is publishing a 

document taking comments on delaying 

the effective date of the final rule. 

II. Discussion of Issues 

A. Introduction 

Effective working place examinations 

are a fundamental accident prevention 

tool used by operators of metal and 

nonmetal (MNM) mines; they allow 

operators to find and fix adverse 

conditions and violations of health and 

safety standards before they cause injury 

or death to miners. 

After further review of the rulemaking 

record, MSHA is considering limited 

changes to the 2017 rule to address: (1) 

When working place examinations must 

begin, and (2) the adverse conditions 

and related corrective actions that must 

be included in the working place 

examinations record. Specifically, 

MSHA is proposing to amend the 

introductory text of §§ 56.18002(a) and 

57.18002(a) in the 2017 rule on when 

examinations must begin, and the 

record requirements in paragraphs (b) 

and (c); MSHA is not proposing to 

modify paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) 

regarding miner notification and 

corrective action requirements. Further, 

MSHA is not proposing to change the 

record retention requirements or the 

record availability requirements 

included in the 2017 rule. 

The Agency believes that the 

proposed changes would be as 

protective as the existing rules. Also, the 

proposal would reduce the regulatory 

burden on mine operators compared to 

requirements in the 2017 rule and 

would be consistent with the 

Administration’s initiatives to reduce 

and control regulatory costs. 

B. Before Work Begins or as Miners 

Begin Work 

The standards for examinations of 

working places in MNM mines at 30 

CFR 56.18002 and 57.18002 were 

promulgated in 1979 and are the 

standards currently in effect. The 

currently effective standards permit the 

examination to be made at any time 

during the shift. Sections 56.18002(a) 

and 57.18002(a) require a competent 

person designated by the mine operator 

to examine each working place at least 

once each shift for conditions that may 


pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules 42759 

adversely affect safety or health. In 

addition, §§ 56.18002(a) and 57.18002(a) 

require the operator to promptly initiate 

appropriate action to correct such 

conditions. 

On January 23, 2017, MSHA 

published a final rule (82 FR 7680) that 

amended §§ 56.18002(a) and 

57.18002(a) to require that the 

examination be conducted before 

miners begin work in that place so that 

conditions that may adversely affect 

miners’ safety and health are identified 

before miners are exposed to those 

conditions and corrective action is 

promptly initiated. 

MSHA is now proposing to modify 

the introductory text of §§ 56.18002(a) 

and 57.18002(a) in the 2017 rule to 

require the competent person to 

examine each working place at least 

once each shift before work begins or as 

miners begin work in that place for 

conditions that may adversely affect 

safety or health. This proposed change 

to §§ 56.18002(a) and 57.18002(a) would 

allow the competent person to conduct 

the examination before work begins or 

as miners begin their work in a place. 

To provide mine operators flexibility on 

scheduling working place examinations, 

MSHA’s proposed change would allow 

miners to enter a working place at the 

same time that the competent person 

conducts the examination. As in the 

2017 rule, MSHA’s proposal would not 

require a specific time frame for the 

examination to be conducted. However, 

MSHA intends that the examination 

should be conducted in a time frame 

sufficient to assure any adverse 

conditions would be identified before 

miners are exposed. Under the proposal, 

the competent person would identify 

adverse conditions that can be corrected 

promptly, and promptly notify miners 

of those that cannot be corrected before 

miners are exposed. In that way, miners 

could avoid and not be exposed to those 

adverse conditions. The operator would 

still be responsible for correcting those 

conditions that can be corrected 

promptly. MSHA recognizes that mining 

is dynamic, conditions are always 

changing, and adverse conditions need 

to be identified and addressed 

throughout the shift, not just at the 

beginning. If adverse conditions are 

identified, miners should be notified 

before being exposed, or as soon as 

possible after work begins if the 

condition is discovered while they are 

working in an area. 

MSHA believes this proposed change 

would be more protective than the 

standards in effect, which allow the 

examination to be made at any time 

during the shift. Also, under this 

proposal, since MSHA expects adverse 

conditions would be identified before 

miners are potentially exposed to them, 

the proposal is as protective as the 2017 

rule. 

Furthermore, in the 2017 rule, MSHA 

acknowledged that for mines with 

consecutive shifts or those that operate 

on a 24-hour, 365-day basis, it may be 

appropriate to conduct the examination 

for the next shift at the end of the 

previous shift. 82 FR 7683. The 

proposed change would continue to 

permit mine operators to conduct an 

examination on the previous shift. 

However, as MSHA stated in the 2017 

rule, because conditions at mines can 

change, operators should examine at a 

time sufficiently close to the start of the 

next shift to minimize potential 

exposure to conditions that may 

adversely affect miners’ safety or health. 

C. Record of Adverse Conditions 

The currently effective standards at 

§§ 56.18002(b) and 57.18002(b) require, 

in part, that mine operators make a 

record that the working place 

examinations were conducted. 

Under the 2017 rule, §§ 56.18002(b) 

and 57.18002(b) require operators to 

make a record of the working place 

examination and include, among other 

information, a description of each 

condition found that may adversely 

affect the safety or health of miners. In 

the preamble to the 2017 rule, MSHA 

noted that the record must include a 

description of adverse conditions that 

are corrected immediately. 82 FR 7686. 

The preamble explained that recording 

all adverse conditions, even those that 

are corrected immediately, would be 

useful in identifying trends and areas 

that could benefit from an increased 

safety emphasis. 

However, MSHA recognizes that it is 

the mine operator who is responsible for 

design of the mine’s safety program and 

that having a recording exception for 

conditions that are corrected promptly 

would provide operators with increased 

incentives to correct these conditions 

promptly, which may improve miner 

safety and health. For this reason, 

MSHA is considering modifying 

§§ 56.18002(b) and 57.18002(b) to 

require that the examination record 

include only those adverse conditions 

that are not corrected promptly. 

MSHA also is considering a 

conforming change to modify 

§§ 56.18002(c) and 57.18002(c) of the 

2017 rule, which requires the 

examination record to include, or be 

supplemented to include, the date of 

corrective action when any condition 

that may adversely affect safety or 

health is corrected. To be consistent 

with MSHA’s proposed change to 

§§ 56.18002(b) and 57.18002(b), MSHA 

would require in §§ 56.18002(c) and 

57.18002(c) that the record include, or 

be supplemented to include, the date of 

corrective action for an adverse 

condition that is not promptly 

corrected. 

MSHA’s proposal is based on the 

recognition that, consistent with 

industry best practices, prudent 

operators routinely correct many 

adverse conditions as the competent 

person is making the examination or as 

soon as possible after the completion of 

the examination, and that the corrective 

action may be taken either by the 

competent person or someone else. The 

Agency believes that the primary 

concern should be with respect to those 

adverse conditions that are not 

corrected promptly because they may 

expose miners to conditions that may 

potentially cause an accident, injury, or 

fatality. Consistent with the explanation 

in the preamble to the 2017 rule, MSHA 

interprets ‘‘promptly’’ to mean before 

miners are potentially exposed to 

adverse conditions. 

Also, the proposed change to 

§§ 56.18002(b) and 57.18002(b) would 

be consistent with MSHA’s miner 

notification provisions under the 2017 

rule at §§ 56.18002(a)(1) and 

57.18002(a)(1). Those provisions require 

mine operators to promptly notify 

miners in affected areas of any 

conditions found that may adversely 

affect their safety or health. In the 

preamble to the 2017 rule, MSHA 

reiterated that, if an adverse condition is 

corrected before miners begin work, 

notification to miners in affected areas 

is not required because there are no 

miners that would be affected by the 

adverse condition. Similarly, under 

proposed paragraph (b), adverse 

conditions that are corrected promptly 

no longer present a danger to miners 

and a description of the adverse 

condition would not be required as part 

of the examination record under this 

proposed rule. MSHA believes that this 

change to §§ 56.18002(b) and 

57.18002(b) may improve safety over the 

existing standards by encouraging mine 

operators to correct adverse conditions 

as they are found before they potentially 

cause an accident, injury, or fatality. 

Overall, MSHA believes that the 

proposed rule would be more protective 

of miners than the existing standards 

under §§ 56.18002 and 57.18002. The 

proposed rule encourages early 

identification and prompt correction of 

adverse conditions to protect miners. If 

corrected promptly, adverse conditions 

would not be required to be 

documented in the record. However, 

adverse conditions that are not 


pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
42760 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

1Except where noted, the analysis presents all 

dollar values using 2016 dollars. 

corrected promptly would be required 

to be documented in the record. An 

examination record with a description 

of these uncorrected adverse conditions 

and their dates of correction would 

permit mine operators to focus on 

conditions that need the most attention 

and on best practices to correct these 

conditions. 

III. Request for Comments 

MSHA is soliciting comments only on 

the limited changes being proposed: (1) 

Working place examinations may begin 

as miners begin work, and (2) adverse 

conditions that are not corrected 

promptly and dates of their corrective 

action must be included in the working 

place examinations record. The Agency 

requests that commenters be as specific 

as possible and include any alternatives, 

existing practices and experiences, 

detailed rationales, supporting 

documentation, and benefits to miners. 

Comments will assist the Agency in 

considering changes to the 2017 rule 

and whether changes would reduce 

regulatory burdens on mine operators 

without reducing the protections 

afforded miners. 

IV. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review; Executive Order 

13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review; and Executive 

Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and 

Controlling Regulatory Costs 

Executive Orders (E.O.) 13563 and 

12866 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). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the 

importance of quantifying both costs 

and benefits, of reducing costs, of 

harmonizing rules, and of promoting 

flexibility. E.O. 13771 directs agencies 

to reduce regulation and control 

regulatory costs by eliminating at least 

two existing regulations for each new 

regulation, and that the cost of planned 

regulations be prudently managed and 

controlled through a budgeting process. 

This proposed rule is expected to be an 

EO 13771 deregulatory action. As 

discussed in this section, MSHA 

estimates that this proposed rule would 

result in annual cost savings of $27.6 

million.1

Under E.O. 12866, it must be 

determined whether a regulatory action 

is ‘‘significant’’ and subject to review by 

OMB. Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 defines 

a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as an 

action that is likely to result in a rule: 

(1) Having an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely and materially affecting a 

sector of the economy, productivity, 

competition, jobs, the environment, 

public health or safety, or state, local, or 

tribal governments or communities (also 

referred to as ‘‘economically 

significant’’); (2) creating serious 

inconsistency or otherwise interfering 

with an action taken or planned by 

another agency; (3) materially altering 

the budgetary impacts of entitlements, 

grants, user fees, or loan programs or the 

rights and obligations of recipients 

thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or 

policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities, or 

the principles set forth in this E.O. 

Based on its assessment of the costs 

and benefits, MSHA has determined 

that this proposed rule would not have 

an annual effect of $100 million or more 

on the economy and, therefore, would 

not be an economically significant 

regulatory action pursuant to section 

3(f) of E.O. 12866. MSHA requests 

comments on all cost and benefit 

estimates presented in this preamble 

and on the data and assumptions the 

Agency used to develop estimates. This 

proposed rule would make changes to 

provisions that created costs in the 2017 

rule, as described in the following 

sections. 

A. Compliance Cost Baseline 

MSHA estimated that the 2017 rule 

will result in $34.5 million in annual 

costs for the MNM industry. The 

Agency estimated that the total 

undiscounted cost of the final rule over 

10 years will be $345.1 million; at a 3 

percent discount rate, $294.4 million; 

and at a 7 percent discount rate, $242.4 

million. In the final rule, MSHA 

estimated costs associated with 

conducting an examination before work 

begins, the additional time to make a 

record, and providing miners’ 

representatives a copy of the record. 

In this proposed rule, MSHA 

estimates the costs of changes to the 

2017 rule that include: (1) An 

examination of a working place as 

miners begin work in that place, and (2) 

the time used to make a record only of 

adverse conditions that are not 

corrected promptly and the dates of 

corrective action for these conditions. 

For purposes of calculating the costs 

attributable to this proposed rule, 

MSHA updated the number of mines 

and used calendar year 2016 wage and 

employment data. MSHA also applied 

2016 wage and employment data to the 

2017 rule to establish a baseline to 

calculate cost savings. 

B. Affected Employees and Revenue 

Estimates 

The proposed rule would apply to all 

MNM mines in the United States. The 

baseline for costs and net benefits 

include costs identified in the preamble 

to the 2017 rule. The changes include 

updates to the 2016 data on wages, 

number of mines, and employment. 

Changes to the baseline that would exist 

without this proposed rule are not 

attributable to this proposal. The 

updates are included for purposes of 

calculating the cost savings attributable 

to this proposed rule. 

In 2016, there were approximately 

11,624 MNM mines employing 140,631 

miners, excluding office workers, and 

69,004 contractors working at MNM 

mines. Table 1 presents the number of 

MNM mines and employment by mine 

size. 

TABLE 1—MNM MINES AND EMPLOYMENT IN 2016 

Mine size Number of 

mines 

Total 

employment 

at mines, 

excluding 

office workers 

1–19 Employees .................................................................................................................................................. 10,428 52,703 

20–500 Employees .............................................................................................................................................. 1,174 71,257 

501+ Employees .................................................................................................................................................. 22 16,671 

Contractors .......................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 69,004 


pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules 42761 

2Revenue estimates are from DOI, U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS), Mineral Commodity Summaries 

2017, January 2017, page 9. 

TABLE 1—MNM MINES AND EMPLOYMENT IN 2016—Continued 

Mine size Number of 

mines 

Total 

employment 

at mines, 

excluding 

office workers 

Total .............................................................................................................................................................. 11,624 209,635 

Source: MSHA MSIS Data (reported on MSHA Form 7000–2) June 6, 2017. 

The U.S. Department of the Interior 

(DOI) estimated the value of the U.S. 

mining industry’s MNM output in 2016 

to be $74.6 billion.2 Table 2 presents the 

hours worked and revenue produced at 

MNM mines by mine size. 

TABLE 2—MNM TOTAL HOURS AND REVENUES IN 2016 

Mine size 

Total hours 

reported 

for year 

Revenue 

(in millions 

of dollars) 

1–19 Employees .................................................................................................................................................. 89,901,269 $22,294 

20–500 Employees .............................................................................................................................................. 153,459,578 40,920 

501+ Employees .................................................................................................................................................. 35,396,747 11,390 

Total .............................................................................................................................................................. 278,757,594 74,604 

Source: MSHA MSIS Data (total hours worked at MNM mines reported on MSHA Form 7000–2) and estimated DOI reported mine revenues 

for 2016. MSHA distributed the totals to mine size using employment and hours data. 

C. Benefits 

The proposed rule would modify the 

2017 rule’s requirements in 

§§ 56.18002(a) and 57.18002(a) that 

require the examination be conducted 

before miners begin work in that place. 

MSHA is proposing to modify these 

provisions to require the examination be 

conducted before work begins or as 

miners begin work in that place. This 

proposed change would reduce the cost 

of the 2017 rule. MSHA is also 

proposing to modify the 2017 rule’s 

requirements in §§ 56.18001(b) and 

57.18002(b) that the examination record 

include each adverse condition found. 

MSHA is proposing to modify these 

provisions to require that the 

examination record include only those 

adverse conditions that are not 

corrected promptly. 

MSHA believes these changes to the 

2017 rule would not reduce the 

protections afforded miners; therefore, 

benefits would remain unchanged, 

which were unquantified in the 2017 

rule, since MSHA was unable to 

separate the benefits of the new 

requirements under the 2017 rule from 

those benefits attributable to conducting 

a workplace examination under the 

existing standard. Thus, net benefits for 

this proposed rule would be positive 

due to the cost savings. 

D. Compliance Costs 

The costs of this proposed rule are 

associated with conducting 

examinations of a working place as 

miners begin work in that place. In the 

preamble to the 2017 rule, MSHA 

concluded that MNM mine operators 

will use a variety of scheduling methods 

to conduct an examination of a working 

place before miners begin work (82 FR 

7690). For the 2017 rule, MSHA 

estimated that it will cost approximately 

$26.9 million for mine operators 

examine each working place before 

miners begin work. 

For the 2017 rule estimate, MSHA 

assumed that operators might use 

overtime, use different people to backfill 

for the time shifted to the examination, 

or experience rescheduling costs to 

comply with the final rule. The 

examination was already required prior 

to the 2017 rule and therefore not an 

additional cost for either the 2017 rule 

or this proposed rule. Under this 

proposed rule, mine operators would 

not be required to make the 2017 rule 

changes to the examination timing that 

were estimated to add $26.9 million for 

overtime, backfill, and rescheduling. 

The proposed change in the 

examination timing would allow mine 

operators to avoid the additional $26.9 

million and therefore create a cost 

savings. MSHA requests comment on 

this estimate. MSHA updated the cost 

estimate for the number of mines and 

labor costs which results in an 

estimated annual cost savings of $27.6 

million. 

The 2017 rule also amended the 

standards currently in effect by 

specifying the contents of the 

examination record, which included a 

requirement that a record include a 

description of each adverse condition 

found. Under this proposed rule, MSHA 

would modify the required contents of 

the examination record by requiring a 

description of each adverse condition 

that is not corrected promptly. MSHA 

assumes that the cost related to the 

proposed change to the recordkeeping 

requirements would be de minimis. 

MSHA seeks comment on the Agency’s 

assumption and solicits information and 

data on the number of instances adverse 

conditions are promptly corrected and 

on average how much time would be 

saved by not requiring these corrected 

conditions to be included in the record. 

MSHA updated the number of mines 

and applied 2016 wage and employment 

data to the 2017 rule to establish a 

baseline to calculate cost savings. 

MSHA estimates that the competent 

person making the record of the 

examination of working places would 

earn $35.28 per hour (including 

benefits). In addition, the estimated 

wage rate of a clerical worker who 

makes a copy of the record is $24.44 per 

hour (including benefits). The wage 

rates are from the Bureau of Labor 


pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
42762 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

3OES data are available at http://www.bls.gov/ 

oes/tables.htm or at http://www.bls.gov/oes/oes_

ques.htm. The employment-weighted mean wage 

rates are for Extraction Workers (Standard 

Occupational Classification code, SOC, 47–500) and 

General Office Clerks (Standard Occupational 

Classification code, SOC, 43–9061) for Metal Ore 

Mining (NAICS 212200) and Nonmetallic Mineral 

Mining and Quarrying (NAICS 212300). The OES 

wages represent the average for the entire industry 

and are used nationally for many federal estimates 

and programs. As with any average, there are 

always examples of higher and lower values, but 

the national average is the appropriate value for a 

rule that regulates an entire industry. 

4The wage rate without benefits was increased 

for a benefit-scalar of 1.48. The benefit-scalar comes 

from BLS Employer Costs for Employee 

Compensation access by menu http://www.bls.gov/ 

data/ or directly with http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/ 

CIU2010000405000I. The data series 

CIU201000040500I, Private Industry Total benefits 

for Construction, extraction, farming, fishing, and 

forestry occupations, is divided by 100 to convert 

to a decimal value. MSHA used the latest 4-quarter 

moving average 2016 Qtr. 1—2016 Qtr. 4 to 

determine that 32.5 percent of total loaded wages 

are benefits. The scaling factor is a detailed 

calculation, but may be approximated with the 

formula and values 1 + (benefit percentage/ 

(1¥benefit percentage)) = 1 + (0.325/(1–0.325)) = 

1.48. Additionally, wage inflation is applied. Wage 

inflation is the change in Series ID: 

CIS2020000405000I; Seasonally adjusted; Series 

Title: Wages and salaries for Private industry 

workers in Construction, extraction, farming, 

fishing, and forestry occupations, Index. (Qtr. 4 

2016/Qtr. 2 2016 = 126.7/125.5 = 1.01). 

5U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ‘‘Wage 

Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release 

Inventory Program,’’ June 10, 2002. 

6For a further example of overhead cost 

estimates, please see the Employee Benefits 

Security Administration’s guidance at https://

www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/ebsa/laws-andregulations/rules-and-regulations/technicalappendices/labor-cost-inputs-used-in-ebsa-opr-riaand-pra-burden-calculations-august-2016.pdf. 

7Memorandum: Implementing Executive Order 

13771, Titled ‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling 

Regulatory Costs, M–17–21’’, April 5, 2017, 

Question 21, https://www.whitehouse.gov/thepress-office/2017/04/05/memorandumimplementing-executive-order-13771-titledreducing-regulation. 

8Office of Management and Budget, Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, Regulatory 

Impact Analysis: Frequently Asked Questions, 

February 7, 2011. 

Statistics (BLS), Occupation 

Employment Statistics (OES) May 2016 

survey.3 4 Updating the 2017 rule’s costs 

results in a new examination cost base 

of $27.6 million annually or 

approximately a $0.7 million increase. 

MSHA also restates the 2017 rule 

estimates that— 

• Mines with 1–19 employees operate 

1.1 shift per day, 169 days per year; 

• Mines with 20–500 employees 

operate 1.8 shifts per day, 285 days per 

year; and 

• Mines with 500+ employees operate 

2.2 shifts per day, 322 days per year. 

Overhead Costs 

MSHA notes that the Agency did not 

include an overhead labor cost in the 

economic analysis for this proposed 

rule. It is important to note that there is 

not one broadly accepted overhead rate 

and that the use of overhead to estimate 

the marginal costs of labor raises a 

number of issues that should be 

addressed before applying overhead 

costs to analyze the costs of any specific 

regulation. There are several approaches 

to look at the cost elements that fit the 

definition of overhead and there are a 

range of overhead estimates currently 

used within the federal government—for 

example, the Environmental Protection 

Agency has used 17 percent,5 and the 

Employee Benefits Security 

Administration has used 132 percent on 

average.6 Some overhead costs, such as 

advertising and marketing, may be more 

closely correlated with output rather 

than with labor. Other overhead costs 

vary with the number of new 

employees. For example, rent or payroll 

processing costs may change little with 

the addition of 1 employee in a 500- 

employee firm, but those costs may 

change substantially with the addition 

of 100 employees. If an employer is able 

to rearrange current employees’ duties 

to implement a rule, then the marginal 

share of overhead costs such as rent, 

insurance, and major office equipment 

(e.g., computers, printers, copiers) 

would be very difficult to measure with 

accuracy (e.g., computer use costs 

associated with 2 hours for rule 

familiarization by an existing 

employee). For this proposed rule, 

comparability is also a problem. The 

January 2017 rule is not in effect and 

therefore additional overhead costs have 

not been incurred and are unlikely to be 

incurred in the short term. Guidance on 

implementing Executive Order 13371 7

also provides general guidance that 

applies in this situation: 

For E.O. 13771 deregulatory actions that 

revise or repeal recently issued rules, 

agencies generally should not estimate cost 

savings that exceed the costs previously 

projected for the relevant requirements, 

unless credible new evidence show that costs 

were previously underestimated. 

If MSHA had included an overhead 

rate when estimating the marginal cost 

of labor, without further analyzing an 

appropriate quantitative adjustment, 

and adopted for these purposes an 

overhead rate of 17 percent on base 

wages, the overhead costs would 

increase cost savings from $27.6 million 

to $32.3 million at all discount rates. 

This increase in savings of $4.7 million 

is the same 17 percent overhead rate as 

all rule costs are labor costs and 

therefore change in direct proportion to 

the rates selected. 

MSHA will continue to study 

overhead costs to ensure regulatory 

costs are appropriately attributed 

without double counting or showing 

savings for concepts not previously 

considered as costs. 

Discounting 

Discounting is a technique used to 

apply the economic concept that the 

preference for the value of money 

decreases over time. In this analysis, 

MSHA provides cost totals at zero, 3, 

and 7 percent discount rates. The zero 

percent discount rate is referred to as 

the undiscounted rate. MSHA used the 

Excel Net Present Value (NPV) function 

to determine the present value of costs 

and computed an annualized cost from 

the present value using the Excel PMT 

function.8 The negative value of the 

PMT function provides the annualized 

cost over 10 years at a 3 and 7 percent 

discount rate using the function’s end of 

period option. 

Summary of Cost Savings 

The following table shows the 

published 2017 rule costs, changes due 

to updating the base, and the resulting 

proposed rule cost savings (cost 

reductions have a negative sign and are 

a cost savings). 

TABLE 3—UNDISCOUNTED COSTS, CHANGES, AND REGULATORY SAVINGS

[Annual values, $ millions] 

Recordkeeping Examination 

timing 

Total 

(may not 

sum due to 

rounding) 

Costs as published in 2017 rule (published using 2015 dollars) ............................................ 7.64 26.88 34.51 

Changes due to updated 2016 baseline data ......................................................................... 0.24 0.72 0.95 

Total 2016 baseline ................................................................................................................. 7.88 27.60 35.47 


pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules 42763 

TABLE 3—UNDISCOUNTED COSTS, CHANGES, AND REGULATORY SAVINGS—Continued 

[Annual values, $ millions] 

Recordkeeping Examination 

timing 

Total 

(may not 

sum due to 

rounding) 

Regulatory savings of proposed rule (change from updated base, negative values = cost 

savings) ................................................................................................................................ 0.00 ¥27.60 ¥27.60 

MSHA estimates that the total 

undiscounted costs of the proposed rule 

over a 10-year period would be 

approximately ¥$276 million, ¥$235.4 

million at a 3 percent rate, and ¥$193.8 

million at a 7 percent rate. Negative cost 

values are cost savings that result in a 

positive net benefit. The same annual 

cost savings occurs in each of the 10 

years so the cost annualized over 10 

years would be approximately ¥$27.60 

million for all discount rates. 

V. Feasibility 

A. Technological Feasibility 

The proposed rule contains 

recordkeeping requirements and is not 

technology-forcing. MSHA concludes 

that the proposed rule would be 

technologically feasible. 

B. Economic Feasibility 

MSHA established the economic 

feasibility of the 2017 rule using its 

traditional revenue screening test— 

whether the yearly impacts of a 

regulation are less than one percent of 

revenues—to establish presumptively 

that the 2017 rule was economically 

feasible for the mining community. This 

proposed rule creates a cost (savings) of 

¥$27.6 million annually compared to 

the 2017 rule. Although the associated 

revenues decreased slightly from the 

2017 rule estimate of $77.6 billion in 

2015 to approximately $74.6 billion for 

2016, the costs retained from the 2017 

rule of approximately $7.9 million per 

year remains well less than one percent 

of revenues and the net decrease in 

costs is even more supportive of the 

Agency’s conclusion. MSHA concludes 

that the proposed rule would be 

economically feasible for the MNM 

mining industry. 

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act and Executive Order 

13272: Proper Consideration of Small 

Entities in Agency Rulemaking 

MSHA has reviewed the proposed 

rule to assess and take appropriate 

account of its potential impact on small 

businesses, small governmental 

jurisdictions, and small organizations. 

MSHA has determined that the 

proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities but 

requested comments in Section IV. of 

this preamble. 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA), MSHA has 

analyzed the impact of the proposed 

rule on small entities. Based on that 

analysis, MSHA certifies that the 

proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The Agency, therefore, is not required to 

develop an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis. MSHA presents the factual 

basis for this certification 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. MSHA has not established an 

alternative definition and, therefore, 

must use SBA’s definition. On February 

26, 2016, SBA’s revised size standards 

became effective. SBA updated the 

small business thresholds for mining by 

establishing a number of different 

levels. MSHA used the new SBA 

standards for the screening analysis of 

the final rule. 

MSHA has also examined the impact 

of the proposed 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, the 

impact of MSHA’s rules and the costs of 

complying with them will also tend to 

differ for these small mines. This 

analysis complies with the requirements 

of the RFA for an analysis of the impact 

on ‘‘small entities’’ using both SBA’s 

definition for small entities in the 

mining industry and MSHA’s traditional 

definition. 

B. Factual Basis for Certification 

MSHA initially evaluates the impacts 

on small entities by comparing the 

estimated compliance costs of a rule for 

small entities in the sector affected by 

the rule to the estimated revenues for 

the affected sector. When this threshold 

analysis shows estimated compliance 

costs have been less than one percent of 

the estimated revenues, the Agency has 

concluded that it is generally 

appropriate to conclude that there is no 

significant adverse economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Additionally, there is the possibility 

that a rule might have a positive 

economic impact. To properly apply 

MSHA’s traditional criteria and 

consider the positive impact case, 

MSHA is adjusting its traditional 

threshold analysis criteria to consider 

the absolute value of one percent rather 

than only the adverse case. This slight 

change means when the absolute value 

of the estimated compliance costs 

exceed one percent of revenues, MSHA 

investigates whether further analysis is 

required. For small entities impacted by 

this proposed rule, MSHA estimates the 

revenue at $63.2 billion and costs at 

¥$30.3 million. As a percentage, the 

absolute value of the impact is less than 

0.05 percent; therefore, using the 

threshold analysis, MSHA concludes no 

further analysis is required and 

concludes the proposed rule would not 

have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

MSHA requests comments on this 

conclusion. 

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

The proposed changes due to this 

rulemaking are unlikely to change the 

number of collections or respondents in 

the currently approved collection 1219– 

0089. The minor recordkeeping change 

may reduce the burden very slightly but 

MSHA concludes that any small 

decrease in the time needed to make the 

record may not be measurable. MSHA 

requested comments on this issue in 

Section IV. of this preamble but is not 


pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
42764 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

requesting any change to the approved 

collection at this time. 

VIII. Other Regulatory Considerations 

A. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 

MSHA has reviewed the proposed 

rule under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.). MSHA has determined that this 

proposed rule does not include any 

federal mandate that may result in 

increased expenditures by State, local, 

or tribal governments; nor will 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 

requires no further Agency action or 

analysis. 

B. 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 this proposed rule will 

have 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 

proposed rule would not impact family 

well-being. 

C. Executive Order 12630: Government 

Actions and Interference With 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights 

Section 5 of E.O. 12630 requires 

Federal agencies to ‘‘identify the takings 

implications of proposed regulatory 

actions . . . .’’ MSHA has determined 

that this proposed rule does not include 

a regulatory or policy action with 

takings implications. Accordingly, E.O. 

12630 requires no further Agency action 

or analysis. 

D. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice 

Reform 

Section 3 of E.O. 12988 contains 

requirements for Federal agencies 

promulgating new regulations or 

reviewing existing regulations to 

minimize litigation by eliminating 

drafting errors and ambiguity, providing 

a clear legal standard for affected 

conduct rather than a general standard, 

promoting simplification, and reducing 

burden. MSHA has reviewed this 

proposed rule and has determined that 

it would meet the applicable standards 

provided in E.O. 12988 to minimize 

litigation and undue burden on the 

Federal court system. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

MSHA has determined that this 

proposed rule does not have federalism 

implications because it will 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, E.O. 

13132 requires no further Agency action 

or analysis. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

MSHA has determined that this 

proposed rule does not have tribal 

implications because it will 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, E.O. 13175 requires no 

further Agency action or analysis. 

G. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

E.O. 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. In its 2017 

rule, MSHA reviewed the rule for its 

energy effects. The impact on uranium 

mines is applicable in this case. MSHA 

data show only two active uranium 

mines in 2016. Because this proposed 

rule would have a net cost savings, 

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. 

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Parts 56 and 

57 

Metals, Mine safety and health, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Wayne D. Palmer, 

Acting 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 by the Mine 

Improvement and New Emergency 

Response Act of 2006, MSHA is 

proposing to amend chapter I of title 30 

of the Code of Federal Regulations as 

amended by the final rule published on 

January 23, 2017 (82 FR 7695), effective 

May 23, 2017, and delayed on May 22, 

2017 (82 FR 23139), until October 2, 

2017 (82 FR 23139), as follows: 

PART 56—SAFETY AND HEALTH 

STANDARDS—SURFACE METAL AND 

NONMETAL MINES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 56 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811. 

■ 2. In § 56.18002, revise paragraph (a) 

introductory text, the second sentence 

of paragraph (b), and paragraph (c) to 

read as follows: 

§ 56.18002 Examination of working 

places. 

(a) A competent person designated by 

the operator shall examine each working 

place at least once each shift before 

work begins or as miners begin work in 

that place for conditions that may 

adversely affect safety or health. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * The record shall contain the 

name of the person conducting the 

examination; date of the examination; 

location of all areas examined; and 

description of each condition found that 

may adversely affect the safety or health 

of miners and is not corrected promptly. 

(c) When a condition that may 

adversely affect safety or health is not 

corrected promptly, the examination 

record shall include, or be 

supplemented to include, the date of the 

corrective action. 

* * * * * 

PART 57—SAFETY AND HEALTH 

STANDARDS—UNDERGROUND 

METAL AND NONMETAL MINES 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 57 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811. 

■ 4. In § 57.18002, revise paragraph (a) 

introductory text, the second sentence 

of paragraph (b), and paragraph (c) to 

read as follows: 

§ 57.18002 Examination of working 

places. 

(a) A competent person designated by 

the operator shall examine each working 

place at least once each shift before 

work begins or as miners begin work in 

that place for conditions that may 

adversely affect safety or health. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * The record shall contain the 

name of the person conducting the 


pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules 42765 

examination; date of the examination; 

location of all areas examined; and 

description of each condition found that 

may adversely affect the safety or health 

of miners and is not corrected promptly. 

(c) When a condition that may 

adversely affect safety or health is not 

corrected promptly, the examination 

record shall include, or be 

supplemented to include, the date of the 

corrective action. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2017–19381 Filed 9–11–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4520–43–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Mine Safety and Health Administration 

30 CFR Parts 56 and 57 

[Docket No. MSHA–2014–0030] 

RIN 1219–AB87 

Examinations of Working Places in 

Metal and Nonmetal Mines 

AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health 

Administration, Labor. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; delay of effective 

date. 

SUMMARY: On January 23, 2017, the 

Mine Safety and Health Administration 

(MSHA) published a final rule in the 

Federal Register amending the Agency’s 

standards for the examination of 

working places in metal and nonmetal 

mines. MSHA is proposing to delay the 

effective date of the Agency’s final rule 

to March 2, 2018. This extension would 

offer additional time for MSHA to 

provide stakeholders training and 

compliance assistance. 

DATES: Comments must be received or 

postmarked by midnight Eastern 

Daylight Saving Time (DST) on 

September 26, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments and 

informational materials, identified by 

RIN 1219–AB87 or Docket No. MSHA– 

2014–0030, by one of the following 

methods: 

Federal E-Rulemaking Portal: https:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Email: zzMSHA-comments@dol.gov. 

Mail: MSHA, Office of Standards, 

Regulations, and Variances, 201 12th 

Street South, Suite 4E401, Arlington, 

Virginia 22202–5452. 

Hand Delivery or Courier: 201 12th 

Street South, Suite 4E401, Arlington, 

Virginia, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. Sign in at the receptionist’s 

desk on the 4th Floor East, Suite 4E401. 

Fax: 202–693–9441. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include RIN 1219–AB87 or Docket No. 

MSHA–2014–0030. Do not include 

personal information that you do not 

want publicly disclosed; MSHA will 

post all comments without change, 

including any personal information 

provided. 

Email Notification: To subscribe to 

receive email notification when MSHA 

publishes rulemaking documents in the 

Federal Register, go to https://

www.msha.gov/subscriptions. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read comments received, go to http://

www.regulations.gov or http://

www.msha.gov/currentcomments.asp. 

To read background documents, go to 

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

docket in person at MSHA, Office of 

Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 

201 12th Street South, Arlington, 

Virginia, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. DST 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. Sign in at the receptionist’s 

desk on the 4th Floor East, Suite 4E401. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sheila A. McConnell, 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: 

I. Delay of Effective Date 

On January 23, 2017, MSHA 

published a final rule in the Federal 

Register (82 FR 7680) amending the 

Agency’s standards for the examination 

of working places in metal and 

nonmetal mines. The final rule was 

scheduled to become effective on May 

23, 2017. On May 22, 2017, MSHA 

published a final rule delaying the 

effective date to October 2, 2017 (82 FR 

23139), to assure that mine operators 

and miners affected by the final 

examinations rule have the training and 

compliance assistance they need prior 

to the rule’s effective date. 

At this time, the Agency is proposing 

to delay the rule’s effective date beyond 

October 2, 2017, to March 2, 2018. As 

MSHA has reiterated to industry 

stakeholders, MSHA made a 

commitment to the industry to hold 

informational meetings around the 

country and to develop and distribute 

compliance assistance material prior to 

enforcing the rule. MSHA also 

committed to conducting compliance 

assistance visits at metal and nonmetal 

mines throughout the country. Further, 

extending the effective date would 

permit more time for MSHA to address 

issues raised by stakeholders during 

quarterly training calls and stakeholder 

meetings and compliance assistance 

visits. MSHA is considering concerns 

raised by stakeholders on certain 

provisions in the rule and how best to 

address them. MSHA intends to 

collaborate with and seek input from 

stakeholders regarding these issues. At 

the same time, MSHA is seeking 

comment on a proposed rule that may 

address some of these issues. The 

extension also would provide MSHA 

more time to train its inspectors to help 

assure consistency in MSHA 

enforcement. MSHA will make the 

Agency’s inspector training materials 

available to the mining community to 

assist miners and mine operators in 

effectively implementing the rule, thus 

enhancing the safety of miners. 

Wayne D. Palmer, 

Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine 

Safety and Health. 

[FR Doc. 2017–19380 Filed 9–11–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4520–43–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0332; FRL–9967–56– 

Region 9] 

Approval of California Air Plan 

Revisions, Placer County and Ventura 

County Air Pollution Control Districts 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Placer County Air 

Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) and 

Ventura County Air Pollution Control 

District (VCAPCD) portions of the 

California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). These revisions concern 

emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) 

from incinerators in the PCAPCD and 

previously unregulated types of fuel 

burning equipment in the VCAPCD. We 

are proposing to approve local rules to 

regulate these emission sources under 

the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We 

are taking comments on this proposal 

and plan to follow with a final action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

October 12, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2017–0332 at http://

www.regulations.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be removed or edited from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 


pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1