Training and Retraining of Miners Engaged in Shell Dredging or Employed at Sand, Gravel, Surface Stone, Surface Clay, Colloidal Phosphate, or Surface Limestone Mines

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mine Safety and Health Administration

30 CFR Part 46

RIN 1219-AB17

Training and Retraining of Miners Engaged in Shell Dredging or

Employed at Sand, Gravel, Surface Stone, Surface Clay, Colloidal

Phosphate, or Surface Limestone Mines

AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Proposed rule, notice of public hearings.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We (MSHA) are announcing public hearings on our proposed rule

on the training and retraining of miners engaged in shall dredging or

employed at sand, gravel, surface stone, surface clay, colloidal

phosphate, or surface limestone mines. The proposed rule appears

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.

DATES: See Supplementary Information section for hearing dates. The

record will remain open after the hearings until June 16, 1999.

ADDRESSES: See Supplementary Information for hearing locations.

Send requests to make oral presentations--

[[Page 18529]]

(1) By telephone to MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and

Variances at 703-235-1910;

(2) By mail to MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and

Variances, 4015 Wilson Boulevard, Room 631, Arlington, VA 22203-1984;

(3) By facsimile to MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and

Variances at 703-235-5551; or

(4) By electronic mail to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol J. Jones, Acting Director,

Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, 4015 Wilson

Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203-1984. She can be reached at

[email protected] (Internet E-mail); 703-235-1910 (Voice); or 703-235-

5551 (Fax).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We published a proposed rule elsewhere in

this issue of the Federal Register addressing training and retraining

of miners of mines where Congress has prohibited us from expending

funds to enforce training requirements since fiscal year 1980. The

proposed rule would implement the training requirements of Sec. 115 of

the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) and provide

for effective miner training at the affected mines.

I. Hearing Dates and Locations

We will conduct four public hearings to receive comments from

interested parties on the proposed rule. All four hearings are

scheduled to run from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., but will continue into

the evening if necessary to accommodate as many participants as is

reasonably possible. We will hold the hearings on the following dates

at the following locations:

1. May 18, 1999, Holiday Inn & Suites, 5905 Kirkman Road, Orlando,

Florida 32819, Tel. No. (407) 351-3333.

2. May 20, 1999, Sacramento Convention Center, 1400 J Street,

Sacramento, California 95814, Tel. No. (916) 264-5291.

3. May 25, 1999, Marriott Pittsburgh Airport, 100 Aten Road,

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15108, Tel. No. (412) 788-8800.

4. May 27, 1999, Department of Labor, Frances Perkins Building,

Auditorium, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, Tel.

No. (202) 219-7816.

II. Issues

Speakers may raise or address any issues relevant to the

rulemaking. However, we are specifically interested in comments on

certain issues. A short discussion of these issues follows.

Definition of ``Miner''

We are interested in whether the proposed definition of ``miner''

is appropriate. Workers who fit the definition of ``miner'' under the

proposal would be required to receive comprehensive training, including

new miner training or newly-hired experienced miner training, as

appropriate. Persons who fall outside this definition would be required

to receive site-specific hazard training.

Under the proposal, a person engaged in mining operations integral

to extraction or production would be considered a ``miner.'' We intend

that the definition of ``miner'' include those workers whose activities

are related to the day-to-day process of extraction or production.

We are particularly interested in recommendations for final rule

language that would help to clarify the scope and application of this

definition. Specifically, we would like comments on whether the final

rule's definition of ``miner'' should include persons whose exposure to

mine hazards is frequent or regular, regardless of whether they are

engaged in extraction or production, or who are employed by the

production-operator, similar to the approach taken in our training

regulations in part 48. Another possible approach would be to

characterize a person's activities more specifically in terms of how

integral or essential they are to extraction or production at the time.

Plan Approval Process

The proposal would require each operator to develop and implement a

written training plan that includes programs for training new miners

and newly-hired experienced miners, training miners for new tasks,

annual refresher training, and hazard training. Plans that include the

minimum information specified in the proposal would be considered

approved and would not be required to be submitted to us for formal

review, unless the operator, a miner or a miners' representative

request it. Miners and their representatives would also be given the

opportunity to comment on the plan before it is implemented.

The approach taken in the proposal for plan approval recognizes

that,while our review of written training plans could provide an

initial check on the quality of the program, such review could not

ensure that the program is successful in its implementation. Rather

than expending our resources on the review and approval of training

plans at all of the mines affected by this rule, we would instead

direct those resources toward verification of the effectiveness of

training plans in their execution, and in assisting operators in

developing and providing quality training to their employees.

Similarly, operator sand training providers would be able to focus on

the development and administration of training plans rather than on

traditional procedures to gain our approval.

We are interested in comments on whether the proposed approach is

appropriate, and whether we should require information in addition to

what is required in the proposal before we consider a plan approved, or

whether we should require less information. We are also interested in

whether any commenters believe a traditional plan approval process,

similar to the process in part 48, is needed to ensure that training

plans meet minimum standards of quality, and why this may be true.

New Miner Training

Under the proposal, no minimum number of hours of training is

required for a new miner before he or she begins work under the close

supervision of an experienced miner. Instead, the proposal requires

instruction in four subject areas before the miner can assume work

duties. By not requiring a minimum number of hours of initial training

for new miners, the proposal would provide flexibility to tailor

training plans to focus on the unique needs of the mine and workforce

and to provide the most effective and relevant training for the new

miners. At the same time, because specific subject areas would be

covered before new miners being work, the miners would receive training

on relevant topics to ensure that they are familiar with the operations

and environment at the mine,their job duties, and the hazards they may

encounter at the mine site.

We are interested in whether commenters agree with this approach,

or whether the final rule should establish a minimum number of hours of

training that new miners must receive before beginning work. One

possible approach would be to specify a minimum number of hours of

initial training that must be provided to miners based on mine size or

complexity of operation. For example, a large operation may be required

to provide eight hours of training, swhile a very small operation would

be required to provide one hour of training. We are interested in

comments on this alternative, particularly on the criteria that might

be used in determining how much initial new miner training must be

given, such as employment, type of operation, type and amount of

[[Page 18530]]

equipment, etc. Commenters who believe that a minimum number of hours

of training should be required should also specify what the minimum

number of hours should be.

New Task Training

This proposed rule would require miners to be trained for new tasks

and for regularly assignee tasks that have changed. The new task

training requirements in the proposal are very performance-oriented,

and do not include detailed specifications for this training. However,

we are interested in comments on whether the final rule should include

more detail and guidance on the elements of an effective new task

training program, and what areas should be addressed. We are also

interested in comments on whether new task training requirements under

the final rule should be modeled after the requirements in part 48, as

recommended by some comments at the public meetings.

Training Instructors

The proposal would not require a formal program for the approval or

certification of instructors,or establish rigid minimum qualifications

for instructors. Instead, training must be provided by a ``competent

person,'' which is defined as a person designated by the operator who

has the ability, training, knowledge, or experience to provide training

to miners on a particular subject. Under this definition, the competent

person must also be able to evaluate the effectiveness of the training.

We are interested in comments on the approach taken in the proposal

for instructors, particularly on the fact that the proposal would not

require a formal instructor approval or certification program. We are

also interested in commenters' views on whether the final rule should

require some minimum amount of formal training for instructors,

designed to ensure that the instructor has the communication skills

needed to provide effective training.

Annual Refresher Training

Under the proposal, refresher training must include, at a minimum,

instruction on changes at the mine that could adversely affect the

miner's health or safety. The proposal includes a list of suggested

topics that refresher training could cover, but these topics are not

mandatory. We are interested in whether the final rule should include

more detailed requirements or guidance for refresher training programs.

We are also interested in whether there are any other subjects that

commenters believe should be required as part of annual refresher

training at all mines, or whether the final rule should remain at

performance-oriented as the proposal.

Effective Date and Compliance Deadlines

We are interested in comments on how much time should be allowed

for the mining community to come into compliance with the final rule.

Several speakers at the public meetings stated that one year after the

date of publication of the final rule would provide a sufficient period

of time for affected operations to come into compliance. Several other

speakers indicated that six months past the publication date would be

adequate.

One possible approach would be phased-in compliance deadlines,

where some of the rule's requirements would go into effect at different

stages. For example, the requirement that you develop and implement a

training plan might become effective six months after the final rule is

published, while the requirements for the various types of miner

training would take effect one year after publication.

We are seeking comments on whether phased-in deadlines would be

useful in facilitating compliance, and what period of time will be

needed for full compliance. We understand that there will be a very

large number of operations coming into compliance simultaneously and

wish to allow a reasonable amount of time for the transition.

Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Rule

We are interested in comments on all elements (including

methodology, assumptions, and data) of our analysis of the costs and

benefits of compliance with the proposed rule.

In terms of compliance costs, we specifically request comments on

the following issues: (1) The non-compliance estimates used in our

preliminary Regulatory Economic Analysis for the proposed rule and

whether partial compliance with existing part 48 training requirements

would be a more realistic and useful assumption; (2) whether new mines

are predominantly opened by current mine owners (who would presumably

be able to adopt an approved training plan) and, more generally,

whether the cost assumptions for existing mines to develop a training

plan are equally applicable to new mines; (3) the assumptions

concerning short safety meetings used to derive the estimate of exempt

mine operator savings attributable to the proposed rule; and (4) the

cost assumptions concerning hazard training, including, particularly,

the number of persons requiring hazard training.

In terms of safety and health benefits, we request comments on (1)

our estimates of the number of fatalities likely to be prevented by

compliance with the proposed rule; (2) the effect of increased

production levels on the number of fatalities and the fatality rate;

and (3) what factors, other than training, might make exempt mines more

hazardous than nonexempt mines.

We are also interested in comments related to potential economic

benefits you might derive from improved miner safety and health

resulting from compliance with the rule. For example, during the public

meetings, several speakers stated that their companies were able to

reduce workers' compensation insurance costs significantly by

instituting an effective safety and health training program. We are

specifically interested in comments concerning how compliance with

proposed part 46 might affect workers' compensation costs at your

operations. Other economic benefits from improved miner health and

safety we request your comments on include, but are not limited to, an

increase in productivity; a reduction in property loss and down time

associated with accidents; and a reduction in employee turnover.

III. Hearing Procedures

We will conduct the hearings in an informal manner with a panel of

MSHA officials. Although formal rules of evidence or cross examination

do not apply, the chair may exercise discretion to ensure the orderly

progress of the hearings and may exclude irrelevant or unduly

repetitious material and questions.

We will begin each session with an opening statement and will then

give members of the public an opportunity to make oral presentations.

The hearing panel may ask questions of speakers. Verbatim transcripts

of the proceedings will be prepared and made a part of the rulemaking

record. Copies of the hearing transcripts will be made available for

public review, and will also be posted on our Internet Home Page at

http://www.msha.gov.

We will also accept written comments and other appropriate

information from any interested party, including those who do not make

oral presentations. All comments and information submitted will be

considered by us in the development of the final rule and included as

part of the rulemaking record. To allow for the submission of

posthearing comments, the record will remain open until June 16, 1999.

[[Page 18531]]

Dated: April 6, 1999.

Marvin W. Nichols, Jr.,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health.

[FR Doc. 99-8895 Filed 4-8-99; 9:52 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-43-U