Electronic Detonators
| Published date | 14 January 2020 |
| Citation | 85 FR 2064 |
| Record Number | 2019-28447 |
| Section | Proposed rules |
| Court | Mine Safety And Health Administration |
Federal Register, Volume 85 Issue 9 (Tuesday, January 14, 2020)
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 14, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2064-2069]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-28447]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration
30 CFR Parts 56 and 57
[Docket No. MSHA-2019-0007]
RIN 1219-AB88
Electronic Detonators
AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is proposing
to revise certain safety standards for explosives at metal and nonmetal
(MNM) mines. This proposed rule updates existing provisions consistent
with technological advancements involving electronic detonators.
Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, MSHA is also
publishing a direct final rule because the Agency expects that there
will be no significant adverse comments on the rule. If no significant
adverse comments are received, the Agency will confirm the effective
date of the final rule. If a significant adverse comment is received,
MSHA will withdraw the direct final rule and proceed with this proposed
rule. MSHA intends to publish a Federal Register notice announcing the
Agency's action. This proposed rule and the companion direct final rule
are substantially identical.
DATES: Comments must be received or postmarked by midnight Eastern
Standard Time on March 16, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments and informational materials, identified by
RIN 1219-AB88 or Docket No. MSHA-2019-0007, by one of the following
methods listed below:
Federal E-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
Email: [email protected].
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 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 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 for the direct final rule must
include RIN 1219-AB88 or Docket No. MSHA-2019-0007. MSHA posts all
comments without change, including any personal information provided.
Access comments electronically on http://www.regulations.gov and on
MSHA's website at https://www.msha.gov/regulations/rulemaking.
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
comments in person at the Office of Standards, Regulations, and
Variances, 201 12th Street South, Suite 4E401, Arlington, Virginia
22202-5452. 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://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDOL/subscriber/new.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sheila A. McConnell, Director, Office
of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at
[email protected] (email), 202-693-9440 (voice); or 202-693-
9441 (facsimile). These are not toll-free numbers.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Direct Final Rule
Concurrent with this proposed rule, MSHA is publishing a separate,
substantially identical direct final rule in the Final Rules section of
this Federal Register edition. The concurrent publication of these
documents will speed notice and comment rulemaking under 30 U.S.C. 811
and the Administrative Procedure Act (see 5 U.S.C. 553) should the
Agency decide to withdraw the direct final rule. All interested parties
who wish to comment should comment at this time because MSHA does not
anticipate initiating an additional comment period.
MSHA has determined that notice and public comment are unnecessary
because the rule imposes no new requirements; it simply clarifies the
application of MSHA's existing standards to technologies developed
after the standards were promulgated. If MSHA does not receive
significant adverse comments on or before February 13, 2020, the Agency
will publish notification in the Federal Register no later than March
16, 2020, confirming the effective date of the direct final rule.
In the event the direct final rule is withdrawn because of
significant adverse comments, the Agency will proceed with this
proposed rulemaking by addressing the comments received and publishing
a final rule. The comment period for this proposed rule runs
concurrently with that of the direct final rule. Any comments received
under this proposed rule will be treated as comments regarding the
direct final rule. Likewise, significant adverse comments submitted to
the direct final rule will be considered as comments to this proposed
rule. The Agency will consider such comments in developing a subsequent
final rule.
II. Background
A. General Discussion
A detonator is a device containing a detonating charge that is used
to initiate an explosion reliably, at a specified time, and, as
applicable, in a prescribed sequence. There are three types of
detonators primarily used in blasting operations in MNM mines. These
are non-electric, electric, and electronic detonators. A non-electric
detonator is designed to initiate explosions without the use of
electric wires. A non-electric detonator includes devices that use
detonating cords, shock-tube systems or safety fuse detonators, or a
combination of these.
An electric detonator uses electrical currents to initiate
detonation. Electrical currents from the detonator's lead wires or
connectors ignite an electric match which in turn ignites a pyrotechnic
delay element that initiates the base charge. The pyrotechnic delay
element burns at an approximated rate. The length and composition of
the pyrotechnic delay element control the approximate rate of burn and
thus the timing. Since the approximate rate of burn is subject to
variation, the timing accuracy of electric detonators is affected.
Electric detonator systems typically include a blasting machine that
delivers the electrical current to the detonator. Circuit testers, such
as a blaster's galvanometer, are used to check the continuity and
resistance of
[[Page 2065]]
the individual detonator and the entire electric circuit.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ MSHA considers detonators fired by a shock tube and
incorporating a pre-programmed microchip delay rather than a
pyrotechnic one to be electric detonators, not electronic
detonators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast to electric detonators, electronic detonator systems do
not have a pyrotechnic delay element. Electronic detonator systems are
designed to use electronic components to transmit a firing signal with
validated commands and secure communications to each detonator, and a
detonator cannot be initiated by other means.
Typically, each detonator has a microchip to control sequence
timing and an integrated circuit chip and a capacitor, internal to each
detonator, to control the initiation time. Electronic detonators enable
exact time delays between blasts to ensure the blast energy is used to
break rock, reducing fugitive energy loss in the form of vibrations.
Unlike non-electric and electric systems, electronic detonators are
uniquely designed by each manufacturer, which requires that these
devices be used according to manufacturers' instructions. Because these
electronic detonator systems require password log-ins, operators must
authorize persons to initiate the detonations, which minimizes the
potential for accidental misuse.
Based on MSHA's experience with the electronic detonator systems it
has reviewed,\2\ the Agency has found that electronic detonator systems
have a number of advantages compared to non- electric and electric
systems, including greater operator control to limit their use to
authorized personnel, more precise timing, reduced vibrations, and a
reduced sensitivity to stray electrical currents and radio frequencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See https://arlweb.msha.gov/TECHSUPP/ACC/lists/00elecdet.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Rulemaking Background
MSHA's existing standards in 30 CFR parts 56 and 57, Subpart E,
focus on hazards associated with transporting, maintaining, using, or
working near explosive materials, including detonators.
Since 1979, MSHA standards have defined detonators to mean any
device containing a detonating charge that is used to initiate an
explosive such as electric blasting caps and non-electrical
instantaneous or delay blasting caps. At the time these standards were
issued, MSHA believed that the definition provided for the automatic
inclusion of new detonators as they developed. Metal and Nonmetal Mine
Safety; New and Revised Definitions and Safety and Health Standards for
Explosives, 44 FR 48535, 48538 (August 17, 1979).
On January 18, 1991, MSHA revised the definition of detonators in
Sec. Sec. 56.6000 and 57.6000 (56 FR 2072) to clarify that the
definition does not include detonating cords and that the detonators
may be either ``Class A'' (explosives that include devices that
constitute a maximum shipping hazard) or ``Class C'' (explosive devices
that may contain Class A explosives, but in restricted quantities) as
classified by the Department of Transportation (DOT) in 49 CFR 173.53
and 173.100.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ As MSHA was in the process of publishing this 1991 rule, DOT
revised its classification requirement at 49 CFR 173.50 and 173.53
(55 FR 52619) consistent with the United Nations Recommendations on
the Transport of Dangerous Goods, issued December 21, 1990. Under
DOT's revisions, Class A explosives were reclassified as ``Division
1.1 and Division 1.2'' to mean explosives that have a mass explosion
hazard (explosion would affect the entire load instantaneously) or
projection hazard (explosion would result in projection of
fragments). Class C explosives were reclassified as ``Division 1.4''
to mean explosives that have a minor explosion hazard (explosive
effects are confined to the packaging). These revised definitions
form the current classification system recognized for shipping and
packaging explosives in the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since MSHA published these rules, advancements in computer and
micro-processing technology have led to electronic timing of
detonations. On September 28, 2004, MSHA issued Program Information
Bulletin (PIB) No. P04-20, Electronic Detonators and Requirements for
Shunting and Circuit Testing, to respond to stakeholder inquiries
concerning how to apply the MSHA requirements for shunting and circuit
testing to electronic detonators. In PIB No. P04-20, MSHA reported
results of the Agency's evaluation of two electronic detonator systems.
MSHA found that the systems contained their own integral elements for
shunting and circuit testing, which met the Agency's existing standards
for shunting and circuit testing when used as recommended by the
manufacturers. Since issuing PIB No. P04-20, MSHA has evaluated several
other electronic detonator systems and has determined that these
systems also contain their own integral elements for shunting and
circuit testing that meet the intended MSHA requirements when these
systems are used according to the manufacturers' instructions. Existing
MSHA standards require operators to adhere to manufacturers'
instructions for all detonation systems, including new systems. See 30
CFR 56.6308 and 57.6308; 56 FR 2072, 2081.
C. Regulatory Review and Reform
On February 28, 2008, the Small Business Administration (SBA)
selected MSHA's explosives standards for regulatory review pursuant to
its Small Business Regulatory Review and Reform Initiative \4\ which
was designed to identify existing federal rules that small business
stakeholders believe should be reviewed and reformed. The MSHA reform
nomination, discussed in the SBA's February 2008 report, stated that
MSHA should update its existing explosive standards to be consistent
with modern mining industry standards. The report further noted
industry concerns that MSHA's existing standards do not address
fundamental aspects of explosive safety, such as electronic detonation.
On July 30, 2008, SBA also testified before the House Subcommittee on
Regulations, Healthcare, and Trade that SBA's Office of Advocacy had
met with nominated agencies to discuss the importance of reviewing and
reforming the identified rules.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ SBA, Office of Advocacy, Report on the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, FY 2007; Annual Report of the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy on Implementation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and
Executive Order 13272, February 2008.
\5\ Testimony of the Honorable Thomas M. Sullivan Chief, Counsel
for Advocacy U.S. Small Business Administration, U.S. House of
Representatives, Committee on Small Business, Subcommittee on
Regulations, Health Care, and Trade, July 30, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2018, the Agency announced its intent to review existing
regulations to assess compliance costs and reduce regulatory burden. As
part of this review, MSHA sought stakeholders' assistance in
identifying those regulations that could be repealed, replaced, or
modified without reducing miners' safety or health. MSHA published on
its website, https://www.msha.gov/provide-or-view-comments-msha-regulations-repeal-replace-or-modify, a notice that the Agency is
seeking assistance in identifying regulations for review. All comments
are posted on the Agency's website.
As a result of this solicitation, MSHA received comments from the
Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME) requesting that MSHA modernize
its standards to ``properly address'' electronic detonators. IME noted
that electronic detonators have been used by the industry for over two
decades and provide a ``sophisticated level of safety and security,''
and recommended several regulatory modifications to both coal and MNM
standards. Specifically, IME proposed changes to Sec. Sec. 56.6000 and
57.6000, the definition of
[[Page 2066]]
``Detonator;'' 56.6310, Misfire waiting period; 57.6407, Circuit
testing; 57.6604, Precautions during storms; 75.1310, Explosives and
blasting equipment; and 77.1303, Explosives, handling and use.
For this proposed rulemaking, MSHA addresses the use of electronic
detonators in MNM surface and underground mines and modifies Sec. Sec.
56.6000 and 57.6000, the definition of ``Detonator;'' 56.6310 and
57.6310, Misfire waiting period; 56.6407 and 57.6407, Circuit testing;
and 57.6604, Precautions during storms. MSHA is amending certain
portions of the explosives standards to include electronic detonators.
However, the other explosives standards in Subparts E in 30 CFR parts
56 and 57 continue to apply to electronic detonators.
For those electronic detonator systems that the Agency has
reviewed, MSHA agrees with IME that electronic detonators provide a
working environment that is as safe or safer for miners compared to
non-electric and electric detonators because they provide for greater
control of a blast.\6\ MSHA believes that recognizing electronic
detonator systems as distinct from electric detonators will eliminate
confusion over certain regulatory requirements. For example, Sec. Sec.
56.6401 and 57.6401 and Sec. Sec. 56.6407 and 57.6407 require that
electric detonators be shunted and tested to provide protection against
premature detonation caused by extraneous current flowing through
portions of the circuit as they are prepared. Operators use a
galvanometer or other instrument to test electric circuits to determine
whether an individual series circuit is continuous, to locate broken
wires and connections, and to avoid introducing excessive current to
the circuit. 56 FR 2082-83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Program Information Bulletin No. P04-20, Electronic
Detonators and Requirements for Shunting and Circuit Testing. In
addition, the U.S. Department of the Interior's Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) published a study in 2013
that concluded that electronic detonators are more accurate and
precise than the non-electric systems. (Field Testing and Analysis
of Blasts Utilizing Short Delays with Electronic Detonators (Lusk,
Silva, and Eltschlager (September 2013)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the elect electronic detonator systems that MSHA has
reviewed contain their own integral elements for shunting and circuit
testing that exceed the safety protections in MSHA's requirements when
the systems are used according to the manufacturer's instructions.
These systems, typically, are designed with an integrated circuit and a
capacitor system internally wired to each electronic detonator, which
isolates the base charge from the wires leading to the internal
capacitors and microchip, making shunting unnecessary.
In addition, based on MSHA's experience, the Agency has found that
electronic detonator systems inherently provide more protection than
MSHA's shunting and circuit testing standards do for electric
detonators because electronic detonator systems communicate digitally
to each detonator and are designed to prevent interference from stray
currents and other electromagnetic interference. Additionally,
electronic detonators are less likely to be misused because they cannot
be fired simply by a battery or by other routine electric sources.
III. Section-by-Section Analysis
A. Sections 56.6000 and 57.6000--Definitions
Under proposed Sec. Sec. 56.6000 and 57.6000, the definition for
Detonator would be modified by adding the words ``electronic
detonators,'' before the word ``electric'' in the second sentence of
the paragraph. Also, in proposed Sec. 56.6000 a comma would be added
after the word ``caps'' in the second sentence.
The proposed change to Sec. Sec. 56.6000 and 57.6000, Detonator,
would modernize the definition by including electronic detonators. The
proposed addition of a comma in Sec. 56.6000 is for clarity and would
conform with the definition of Detonator in Sec. 57.6000.
B. Sections 56.6310 and 57.6310--Misfire Waiting Period
Sections 56.6310 and 57.6310 require that in the event of a misfire
while blasting, personnel should wait a specific time period based on
the type of detonator being used before entering the blast area for
safety.
Under proposed Sec. Sec. 56.6310 and 57.6310, a new paragraph (c)
would be added that would require a 30 minute waiting period, or for
the manufacturer-recommended time, whichever is longer, in the event of
a misfire while blasting with an electronic detonator.
MSHA believes that waiting at least 30 minutes before entering a
blast area if electronic detonators are involved in a misfire provides
personnel an adequate amount of time to analyze the circumstances of
the misfire and to develop a plan of action to safely enter the blast
area. In MSHA's experience, this waiting period is consistent with
industry-recommended standards.\7\ In the event that an electronic
detonator manufacturer recommends more than a 30-minute waiting period
if a misfire occurs using its electronic detonators, MSHA proposes to
require that persons must follow the manufacturer's recommended wait
time before entering the blast area. This is consistent with Sec. Sec.
56.6308 and 57.6308, requiring persons to follow manufacturer's
instructions for using detonation systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Institute of Makers of Explosives, Safety Library
Publication No. 4, Warnings and Instructions for Consumers in
Transporting, Storing, Handling, and Using Explosive Materials
(October 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Sections 56.6407 and 57.6407--Circuit Testing
Sections 56.6407 and 57.6407 require that blasting circuits be
tested to ensure the circuits are properly wired. Under proposed Sec.
56.6407(a) and (c), the words ``or electronic'' would be added to
paragraphs (a) and (c). In addition, under proposed Sec. 57.6407(a)(3)
and (b)(2), the words ``or electronic'' would be added to paragraphs
(a)(3) and (b)(2).
A blasting galvanometer is used to test electric detonator circuits
to prevent misfires by determining whether an individual series circuit
is continuous and by locating broken wires and connections. A blasting
galvanometer or other appropriate type of testing equipment is used to
avoid introducing excessive current into the circuit. This differs from
the electronic detonator systems the Agency has reviewed because these
systems have a means for circuit testing incorporated into their
designs. The Agency anticipates that other electronic detonator systems
MSHA has not reviewed also have integral circuit testing mechanisms.
While revising the standard would clarify that the circuit-testing
requirement applies to electronic detonator systems, the Agency
believes that most or all electronic detonator systems already comply
with this safety standard. The proposed changes are not intended to
require that electronic detonator systems with integral circuit testing
be tested additionally with a galvanometer or other outside mechanism.
D. Section 57.6604(b)--Precautions During Storms
Under Sec. 57.6604, underground electrical blasting operations
must be suspended during the approach and progress of an electrical
storm. Electromagnetic fields and stray currents can be generated from
lightning. Higher energy levels of electromagnetic interference and
stray current are generally disruptive or damaging to electronic
equipment. Based on MSHA's experience with the electronic detonators it
has examined, electronic detonator systems and technologies generally
have the base charge isolated from the wires leading to
[[Page 2067]]
the internal capacitors and microchip providing built-in protection
from interference from electromagnetic fields and stray current.
However, MSHA is aware that an electromagnetic pulse such as lightning
strikes traveling through underground mines by paths such as air lines,
water lines, and conductive ore bodies, can damage all types of
detonators and equipment and cause misfires. Therefore, under proposed
Sec. 57.6604(b), the words ``electronic or'' would be added after the
word ``Underground.''
The Agency believes that most or all electronic detonator systems
are designed to minimize or eliminate the possibility that lightning
could initiate a blast; many systems may not be capable of being
initiated by lightning. In addition, to the extent these systems are
capable of being initiated by lightning, MSHA believes that operators
already have been applying these requirements to electronic detonator
systems through manufacturers' directions and accepted industry
practices. MSHA believes the proposed revision will have little or no
actual impact on operators' existing practices and simply eliminates
ambiguity in the requirements under Sec. 57.6604(b).
III. Regulatory Economic Analysis
Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 13563
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.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this
proposed rule as not a `major rule', as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
MSHA has assessed the costs and benefits of the changes and has
determined that there are no costs associated with this proposed rule.
Currently, electronic detonators have been used by the mining industry
for more than 20 years and account for at least 15 percent of the blast
initiation systems used in the U.S. in all industries.\8\ As part of
the Agency's regulatory reform efforts, MSHA received comments from
industry representatives supporting the proposed changes. This proposed
rule codifies activity already undertaken by the mining industry
regarding electronic detonators. This proposed rulemaking is a
deregulatory action under E.O. 13771 in its effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ U.S. Geological Survey, Minerals Yearbook, Explosive
Consumption Report (2015-2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed rule will not increase or decrease the costs or
benefits associated with the use of electronic detonators; however,
this action would eliminate ambiguity about detonator options in the
application of existing requirements so that mine operators would be
able to use their resources more efficiently when making business
decisions.
Among other things, this proposed rule clarifies the
nonapplicability of certain MSHA standards to electronic detonating
systems. For example, while the new ``circuit testing'' standard now
makes clear that the standard contemplates electronic detonating
systems as well as electric detonators, the preamble clarifies that
most or all of these electronic systems inherently comply and that,
therefore, the specific actions operators must take when using electric
detonators generally need not be taken for electronic detonating
systems. Likewise, while this proposed rulemaking does not directly
address MSHA's shunting standards, the preamble clarifies that, while
those standards require operators to take specific actions when using
electric detonators, they are not applicable to inherently compliant
electronic detonating systems. Through these clarifications, MSHA would
ensure the safety advantages offered by the use of electronic
detonators are available to mine operators, including greater operator
control to limit use to authorized personnel, more precise timing,
reduced vibrations, and a reduced sensitivity to stray electrical
currents and radio frequencies. Furthermore, consistent with the
directive in E.O. 13777, this proposed rule would update outdated
regulations and accommodate technological advances.
Under E.O. 12866, a significant regulatory action is one meeting
any of a number of specified conditions, including the following:
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. MSHA has determined that the proposed rule is
``other significant'' under E.O. 12866.
IV. Feasibility
MSHA has concluded that the requirements of the proposed rule would
be both technologically and economically feasible because the proposed
requirements are already generally accepted industry practices for the
use of electronic detonators.
V. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act
Pursuant to 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 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 because it does not impose any new
costs. Therefore, the Agency is not required to develop an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis.
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
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). There are no information collections
associated with this proposed rule.
VII. 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
would 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. Since the
proposed rule does not cost over $100 million in any one year, the
proposed rule is not a major rule under the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995.
[[Page 2068]]
B. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
The proposed rule does not have ``federalism implications'' because
it would 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. Executive Order 12630: Government Actions and Interference With
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights
The proposed rule does not implement a policy with takings
implications. Accordingly, under E.O. 12630, no further Agency action
or analysis is required.
D. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
The proposed rule was 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 proposed rule meets the
applicable standards provided in section 3 of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice
Reform.
E. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This proposed rule does not have ``tribal implications'' because it
would 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.
F. 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 proposed rule for its energy effects because the proposed rule
applies to the metal and nonmetal mining sector. MSHA has concluded
that it is not 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.
G. Executive Order 13272: Proper Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking
MSHA has thoroughly 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 and certified that the proposed rule does not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
List of Subjects
30 CFR Part 56
Chemicals, Electric power, Explosives, Fire prevention, Hazardous
substances, Metals, Mine safety and health.
30 CFR Part 57
Chemicals, Electric power, Explosives, Fire prevention, Hazardous
substances, Metals, 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 proposes to
amend chapter I of title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations as
follows:
PART 56--SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS SURFACE METAL AND NONMETAL
MINES
0
1. The authority citation for part 56 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811.
0
2. In Sec. 56.6000, revise the definition for ``Detonator'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 56.6000 Definitions.
* * * * *
Detonator. Any device containing a detonating charge used to
initiate an explosive. These devices include electronic detonators,
electric or nonelectric instantaneous or delay blasting caps, and delay
connectors. The term ``detonator'' does not include detonating cord.
Detonators may be either ``Class A'' detonators or ``Class C''
detonators, as classified by the Department of Transportation in 49 CFR
173.53 and 173.100 which is available at any MSHA Metal and Nonmetal
Safety and Health district office.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 56.6310 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b); and
0
b. Adding paragraph (c).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 56.6310 Misfire waiting period.
* * * * *
(a) For 30 minutes if safety fuse and blasting caps are used;
(b) For 15 minutes if any other type detonators are used; or
(c) For 30 minutes if electronic detonators are used, or for the
manufacturer-recommended time, whichever is longer.
Sec. 56.6407 [Amended]
0
4. In Sec. 56.6407 amend paragraphs (a) and (c) by adding the words
``or electronic'' after the word ``electric''.
PART 57--SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS UNDERGROUND METAL AND NONMETAL
MINES
0
5. The authority citation for part 57 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811.
0
6. In Sec. 57.6000, revise the definition for ``Detonator'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 57.6000 Definitions.
* * * * *
Detonator. Any device containing a detonating charge used to
initiate an explosive. These devices include electronic detonators,
electric or nonelectric instantaneous or delay blasting caps, and delay
connectors. The term ``detonator'' does not include detonating cord.
Detonators may be either ``Class A'' detonators or ``Class C''
detonators, as classified by the Department of Transportation in 49 CFR
173.53 and 173.100 which is available at any MSHA Metal and Nonmetal
Safety and Health district office.
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec. 57.6310 by
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b); and
0
b. Adding paragraph (c).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 57.6310 Misfire waiting period.
* * * * *
(a) For 30 minutes if safety fuse and blasting caps are used;
(b) For 15 minutes if any other type detonators are used; or
(c) For 30 minutes if electronic detonators are used, or for the
manufacturer-recommended time, whichever is longer.
Sec. 57.6407 [Amended]
0
8. In Sec. 57.6407 amend paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(2) by adding the
words ``or electronic'' after the word ``electric''.
[[Page 2069]]
Sec. 57.6604 [Amended]
0
9. Amend Sec. 57.6604(b) by adding the words ``electronic or'' after
the word ``Underground''.
David G. Zatezalo,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health Administration.
[FR Doc. 2019-28447 Filed 1-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4520-43-P
