[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 14, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18498-18528]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-8894]



[[Page 18497]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Department of Labor





_______________________________________________________________________



Mine Safety and Health Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



30 CFR Parts 46 and 48



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

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 1999 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 18498]]



DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mine Safety and Health Administration

30 CFR Parts 46 and 48

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.

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

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would amend MSHA's existing health and 
safety training regulations by establishing new training requirements 
for shell dredging, sand, gravel, surface stone, surface clay, 
colloidal phosphate, and surface limestone mines. Congress has 
prohibited MSHA from expending funds to enforce training requirements 
at these mines since fiscal year 1980. This proposed rule would 
implement the training requirements of section 115 of the Federal Mine 
Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) and provide for effective 
miner training at the affected mines once Congress has removed the 
appropriation's prohibition from MSHA's budget. At the same time, the 
proposed rule would allow mine operators the flexibility to tailor 
their training programs to the specific needs of their miners and 
operations.

DATES: Submit comments on or before June 14, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposed rule--

    (1) By mail to MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and 
Variances, 4015 Wilson Boulevard, Room 631, Arlington, VA 22203;
    (2) By facsimile to MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and 
Variances, 703-235-5551; or
    (3) By electronic mail to [email protected]. If possible, please 
supplement written comments with computer files on disk; contact the 
Agency with any format questions.

    Submit written comments on the information collection requirements 
directly to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, New 
Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, 
Attn: Desk Officer for MSHA; and to Carol J. Jones, Acting Director, 
Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA 4015 Wilson 
Boulevard, Room 631, Arlington, VA 22203; by facsimile to MSHA, at 703-
235-5551; or by electronic mail to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol J. Jones, Acting Director, 
Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA; 703-235-1910.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Plain Language

    We (MSHA) wrote this proposed rule in the more personal style 
advocated by the President's executive order on ``plain language.'' 
``Plain language'' encourages the use of--

     personal pronouns (we and you);
     sentences in the active voice;
     a greater use of headings, lists, and questions, as 
well as charts, figures, and tables.

In this proposed rule, ``you'' refers to production-operators and 
independent contractors because they have the primary responsibility 
for compliance with MSHA regulations. In addition, we recognize and 
appreciate the value of comments, ideas, and suggestions from labor 
organizations, industry associations, and other parties who have an 
interest in health and safety training for miners. We would appreciate 
comments and suggestions from all parties on this proposed rule and on 
our use of ``plain language.'' How could we improve the clarity of this 
style?

II. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule contains collection of information requirements 
that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA 95). The title, 
description, and respondent description of the information collection 
are shown below with an estimate of the annual reporting burden. 
Included in the estimate is the time for reviewing instructions, 
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing 
the collection of information. We invite comments on--

    (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary 
for proper performance of our functions, including whether the 
information will have practical utility;
    (2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed 
collection of information, including the validity of the methodology 
and assumptions used;
    (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of 
information to be collected; and
    (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information 
on respondents, including through the use of automated collection 
techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information 
technology.

    These estimates are an approximation of the average time expected 
to be necessary for a collection of information. They are based on such 
information as is available to us.

Submission

    MSHA has submitted a copy of this proposed rule to OMB for its 
review and approval of these information collections. Interested 
persons are requested to send comments regarding this information 
collection, including suggestions for reducing this burden, directly to 
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, New Executive 
Office Building, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attn: Desk 
Officer for MSHA; and to Carol J. Jones, Office of Standards, 
Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, 4015 Wilson Boulevard, Room 631, 
Arlington, VA 22203. Submit written comments on the information 
collection no later than June 14, 1999.

Description of Respondents

    Those required to provide the information are mine operators and 
individuals who are paid to perform tasks for the mine operator (e.g., 
instructors).

Description of Information Collection Burden

    The proposal contains information collection requirements in 
Secs. 46.3, 46.5, 46.6, 46.7, 46.8, 46.9, and 46.11. The proposed rule 
imposes first year total burden hours and costs of 239,188 hours and 
$8,291,569. The first year burden hours and costs are composed by 
summing the figures in Tables VII-1, VII-2, and VII-3. After the first 
year, the annual burden hours and costs would be 226,685 hours and 
$7,865,469, which is shown in Table VII-2
    Table VII-1 presents one-time burden hours and costs by provision 
and mine size.

[[Page 18499]]



                                              Table VII-1.--Mine Operators' One-Time Burden Hours and Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Mines (1-5)              Mines (6-19)          Mines (20)            Totals
                      Prov.                      -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Hrs.        Costs         Hrs.        Costs         Hrs.        Costs         Hrs.        Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
46.3............................................        7,509     $256,290        3,277     $111,830        1,207      $42,250       11,993     $410,370
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table VII-2 presents annual burden hours and cost by provision and 
mine size.

                                              Table VII-2.--Mines Operators' Annual Burden Hours and Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Mines (1-5)              Mines (6-19)          Mines (20)               Totals
                   Prov.                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Hrs.        Costs         Hrs.        Costs         Hrs.        Costs         Hrs.           Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
46.5.......................................       41,007   $1,676,058       21,458   $1,016,502        4,860     $297,170       67,325        $2,989,730
46.6.......................................        7,898      284,341        4,240      152,627          978       35,192       13,116           472,159
46.7.......................................        5,599      201,579        7,980      287,297        7,111      256,008       20,691           744,884
46.8.......................................       34,551    1,243,839       15,433      555,582        5,461      196,582       55,445         1,996,003
46.9.......................................        2,765       73,267        5,876      155,725        5,704      151,164       14,346           380,156
46.11......................................       25,208      579,773       22,005      506,115        8,550      196,650       55,763         1,282,538
                                            ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total................................      117,028    4,058,857       76,992    2,673,847       32,664    1,132,765      226,685         7,865,469
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table VII-3 presents miners and miners' representatives one-time 
burden hours and costs.

                                    Table VII-3.--Miners and Miners' Representatives--One-Time Burden Hours and Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Mines (-5)               Mines (6-19)          Mines (20)            Totals
                      Prov.                      -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Hrs.        Costs         hrs.        Costs         Hrs.        Costs         Hrs.        Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
46.3............................................          336       $7,728          146       $3,358           28         $644          510      $11,730
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (a) of Sec. 46.3 requires you to develop and implement a 
written training plan that contains effective programs for training new 
miners and experienced miners, training miners for new tasks, annual 
refresher training, and hazard training. The mines affected by this 
provision are--
    (1) 3,361 mines that employ 5 or fewer workers;
    (2) 1,467 mines that employ between 6 and 19 workers; and
    (3) 285 mines that employ 20 or more workers.
    MSHA estimates that a mine supervisor, earning $36 per hour, would 
take 2 hours to write a plan in mines that employ fewer than 20 
persons, and 4 hours in mines that employ 20 or more persons. The one-
time costs are annualized using an annualization factor of 0.07.
    Paragraph (b) requires the following information, at a minimum, to 
be included in a training plan:

    (1) The company name, mine name, and MSHA mine identification 
number;
    (2) The name and position of the person designated by you who is 
responsible for the health and safety training at the mine. This 
person may be the operator;
    (3) A general description of the teaching methods and the course 
materials that are to be used in providing the training, including 
the subject areas to be covered and the approximate time to be spent 
on each subject area;
    (4) A list of the persons who will provide the training, and the 
subject areas in which each person is competent to instruct; and
    (5) The evaluation procedures used to determine the 
effectiveness of training.

    Paragraph (c) requires a plan that does not include the minimum 
information specified in paragraph (b) to be approved by us. For each 
size category, we estimate that 20 percent of you will choose to write 
a plan and send it to us for approval. Thus, the mines affected by this 
provision are--

    (1) 672 mines that employ 5 or fewer workers;
    (2) 293 mines that employ between 6 and 19 workers; and
    (3) 57 mines that employ 20 or more workers.

    MSHA estimates that it would take a clerical worker, earning $17 
per hour, about 0.1 hours per mine to photocopy and mail the training 
plan. The one-time costs are annualized using an annualization factor 
of 0.07.
    Paragraph (d) requires you to provide miners' representatives with 
a copy of the training plan. At mines where no miners' representative 
has been designated, you must post a copy of the plan at the mine or 
provide a copy to each miner. The mines affected by this provision 
are--

    (1) 3,361 mines that employ 5 or fewer workers;
    (2) 1,467 mines that employ between 6 and 19 workers; and
    (3) 285 mines that employ 20 or more workers.

    MSHA estimates that a clerical worker, earning $17 per hour, would 
take 0.1 hours to photocopy the plan and either deliver or post the 
plan. The one-time costs are annualized using an annualization factor 
of 0.07.
    Paragraph (e) provides that within 2 weeks following receipt or 
posting of the training plan, miners or their representatives may 
submit written comments on the plan to you, or to the Regional Manager, 
as appropriate. The burden hours and costs of this provision are not 
borne by you, but by miners and their representatives.
    MSHA estimates that a miner or miners' representative would submit 
comments for 5 percent of the affected mines in each size category. The 
mines affected by this provision are--

    (1) 168 mines that employ 5 or fewer workers;
    (2) 73 mines that employ between 6 and 19 workers; and
    (3) 14 mines that employ 20 or more workers.

    MSHA estimates that a miner or miners' representatives, earning $23 
per hour, would take 2 hours per affected mine to prepare written 
comments. The one-time costs are annualized using an annualization 
factor of 0.07.

[[Page 18500]]

    Paragraph (g) allows you, miners, and miners' representatives to 
appeal a decision of the Regional Manager in writing to the Director 
for Education Policy and Development. The Director would issue a 
decision on the appeal within 30 days after receipt of the appeal. The 
mines affected by this provision are--

    (1) 13 mines that employ 5 or fewer workers;
    (2) 6 mines that employ between 6 and 19 workers; and
    (3) 1 mine that employees 20 or more workers.

    MSHA estimates that for 90% of you who would appeal a decision, a 
mine supervisor would write the appeal. MSHA estimates that a mine 
supervisor, earning $36 per hour, would take 4 hours to write the 
appeal. The one-time costs are annualized using an annualization factor 
of 0.07.
    MSHA further estimates that for the remaining 10% of you who would 
appeal a decision, an attorney (a third party) would write the appeal. 
There are no mine operator burden hours in this case, because you would 
pay the third party for its services. The attorney fee to handle an 
appeal process is estimated to be $2,000 per appeal, and this cost is 
annualized using an annualization factor of 0.07.
    Paragraph (h) requires you to make available at the mine site a 
copy of the current training plan for inspection by MSHA and for 
examination by miners and their representatives. If the training plan 
is not maintained at the mine site, you must have the capability to 
provide the plan upon request by MSHA, miners, or their 
representatives. The mines affected by this provision are--

    (1) 3,361 mines that employ 5 or fewer workers;
    (2) 1,467 mines that employ between 6 and 19 workers; and
    (3) 285 mines that employ 20 or more workers.

    MSHA estimates that a clerical worker, earning $17 per hour, would 
take 0.1 hours to photocopy and file the training plan. The one-time 
costs are annualized using an annualization factor of 0.07.
    Paragraph (a) of Sec. 46.5 requires you to provide each new miner 
with no less than 24 hours of training. Miners who have not received 
the full 24 hours of new miner training must work under the close 
supervision of an experienced miner. The mines affected by this 
provision are--

    (1) 3,361 mines that employ 5 or fewer workers;
    (2) 1,467 mines that employ between 6 and 19 workers; and
    (3) 285 mines that employ 20 or more workers.

    MSHA estimates that for each mine, a mine supervisor, earning $36 
per hour, would take 6 hours annually to prepare for the new miner 
training. MSHA further estimates that the average number of training 
sessions the mine supervisor would provide annually are--

    (1) 0.46 sessions for mines that employ 5 or fewer workers;
    (2) 0.64 sessions for mines that employ between 6 and 19 
workers; and
    (3) 0.82 sessions for mines that employ 20 or more workers.

On average, each training session is estimated to last 13.48 hours.
    Additionally, we estimate that part of new miner training would be 
provided off-site by a third party. You would pay the third party for 
providing this part of the new miner training; thus you would incur 
burden costs but no burden hours. The number of miners receiving off-
site training are--

    (1) 1,537 miners in mines that employ 5 or fewer workers;
    (2) 1,877 miners in mines that employ between 6 and 19 workers; 
and
    (3) 940 miners in mines that employ 20 or more workers.

    The annual costs for off-site training are $130 per miner. This 
consists of the following: a $35 training fee; $30 for transportation 
to off-site training; $30 per diem for meals; and $35, on average, for 
overnight lodging (We assume that half of the miners receiving off-site 
training will require overnight lodging for one night at $70 per night, 
or 0.5  x  $70).
    Paragraph (a) of Sec. 46.6 requires you to provide each newly-hired 
experienced miner with certain training before the miner begins work. 
The mines affected by this provision are--

    (1) 3,361 mines that employ 5 or fewer workers;
    (2) 1,467 mines that employ between 6 and 19 workers; and
    (3) 285 mines that employ 20 or more workers.

    MSHA estimates that it would take a mine supervisor, earning $36 
per hour, 1 hour annually to prepare to give the experienced miner 
training. MSHA further estimates that the average number of training 
sessions the mine supervisor would provide annually are--

    (1) 0.45 sessions for mines that employ 5 or fewer workers;
    (2) 0.63 sessions for mines that employ between 6 and 19 
workers; and
    (3) 0.81 sessions for mines that employ 20 or more workers.

On average, each training session is estimated to last 3 hours.
    Paragraph (a) of Sec. 46.7 requires that before a miner performs a 
task for which he or she has no experience, you must train the miner in 
the safety and health aspects and safe work procedures specific to that 
task. If changes have occurred in a miner's regularly assigned task, 
you must provide the miner with training that addresses the changes. 
The mines affected by this provision are--

    (1) 3,361 mines that employ 5 or fewer workers;
    (2) 1,467 mines that employ between 6 and 19 workers; and
    (3) 285 mines that employ 20 or more workers.

    MSHA estimates that for each mine, a mine supervisor, earning $36 
per hour, would take 0.25 hours annually to prepare for the task 
training. MSHA further estimates that the average number of training 
sessions the mine supervisor would provide annually are--

    (1) 2.36 sessions for mines that employ 5 or fewer workers;
    (2) 8.65 sessions for mines that employ between 6 and 19 
workers; and
    (3) 41.17 sessions for mines that employ 20 or more workers.

On average, each training session is estimated to last 0.6 hours.
    Paragraph (a) of Sec. 46.8 requires that at least every 12 months, 
you must provide each miner with no less than 8 hours of refresher 
training. The mines affected by this provision in each size category 
are--

    (1) 3,361 mines that employ 5 or fewer workers;
    (2) 1,467 mines that employ between 6 and 19 workers; and
    (3) 285 mines that employ 20 or more workers.

    MSHA estimates that for each mine, a mine supervisor, earning $36 
per hour, would take 3 hours to prepare for the task training. MSHA 
further estimates that the average number of training sessions the mine 
supervisor would provide annually are--

    (1) 0.91 sessions for mines that employ 5 or fewer workers;
    (2) 0.94 sessions for mines that employ between 6 and 19 
workers; and
    (3) 2.02 sessions for mines that employ 20 or more workers.

On average, each training session is estimated to last 8 hours.
    Paragraph (a) of Sec. 46.9 requires you, upon completion of each 
training program, to record and certify on MSHA Form 5000-23, or on a 
form that contains the required information, that the miner has 
completed the training. False certification that training was

[[Page 18501]]

completed is punishable under Sec. 110(a) and (f) of the Act. For all 
records required to be kept in Secs. 46.5, 46.6, 46.7, and 46.8, MSHA 
estimates that for each mine, a mine supervisor, earning $36 per hour, 
would take 0.05 hours to record and certify each miner's training 
record. In addition, it would take a clerical worker, earning $17 per 
hour, 0.05 hours to prepare, copy, and distribute the certificate.
    The annual number of training records required to be kept under 
Sec. 46.5 (New miner training) are--

    (1) 1,537 in mines that employ 5 or fewer workers;
    (2) 1,877 in mines that employ between 6 and 19 workers; and
    (3) 940 in mines that employ 20 or more workers.

    The annual number of training records required to be kept under 
Sec. 46.6 (Newly-hired experienced miner training) are--

    (1) 1,516 in mines that employ 5 or fewer workers;
    (2) 1,856 in mines that employ between 6 and 19 workers; and
    (3) 930 in mines that employ 20 or more workers.

    The annual number of training records required to be kept under 
Sec. 46.7 (New task training) are--

    (1) 18,446 in mines that employ 5 or fewer workers;
    (2) 41,273 in mines that employ between 6 and 19 workers; and
    (3) 41,380 in mines that employ 20 or more workers.

    The annual number of training records required to be kept under 
Sec. 46.8 (Annual refresher training) are--

    (1) 6,149 in mines that employ 5 or fewer workers;
    (2) 13,758 in mines that employ between 6 and 19 workers; and
    (3) 13,793 in mines that employ 20 or more workers.

    During the public meetings, numerous commenters stated that records 
should not have to be retained at the mine site. MSHA agrees and the 
proposed rule provides that records are not required to be maintained 
at the mine site, and therefore can be electronically filed in a 
central location, so long as the records are made available to the 
authorized representative of the Secretary upon request within a 
reasonable time, in most cases one day.
    Although the proposed rule does not require backing up the data, 
some means are necessary to ensure that electronically stored 
information is not compromised or lost. MSHA encourages mine operators 
who store records electronically to provide a mechanism that will allow 
the continued storage and retrieval of records in the year 2000.
    MSHA solicits comment on what actions would be required, if any, to 
facilitate the maintenance of records in electronic form by those mine 
operators who desire to do so, while ensuring access in accordance with 
these requirements.
    Paragraph (a) of Sec. 46.11 requires you to provide site-specific 
hazard training to--

    (1) Scientific workers;
    (2) Delivery workers and customers;
    (3) Occasional, short-term maintenance or service workers, or 
manufacturers' representatives; and
    (4) Outside vendors, visitors, office or staff personnel who do 
not work at the mine site on a continuing basis.

    The annual number of non-miners to be trained are--

    (1) 50 non-miners in each of the 3,361 mines that employ 5 or 
fewer workers;
    (2) 100 non-miners in each of the 1,467 mines that employ 
between 6 and 19 workers; and
    (3) 200 non-miners in each of the 285 mines that employ 20 or 
more workers.

    No record is required for this type of training. The burden is for 
the time the miner takes to provide the training. MSHA estimates that 
for each mine, a miner, earning $23 per hour, would take 0.15 hours 
annually, on average, to provide hazard training.

III. Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 requires that regulatory agencies 
assess both the costs and benefits of intended regulations. Based upon 
the economic analysis, we have determined that this proposed rule is 
not an economically significant regulatory action pursuant to section 
3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866. MSHA does consider the proposed rule to be 
significant under section 3(f)(4) of the E.O. because of widespread 
interest in the rule, and has submitted the proposal to OMB for review.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires regulatory agencies 
to consider a rule's impact on small entities. Under the RFA, MSHA must 
use the Small Business Administration's (SBA) definition for a small 
mine of 500 or fewer employees 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. In this proposed rule, none of the affected mines 
have 500 or more employees. Therefore for the purposes of the RFA, all 
of the affected mines are considered small. MSHA has analyzed the 
impact of the proposed rule on mines with 20 or more employees, mines 
with 6-19 employees, and mines with 1-5 employees. MSHA has determined 
that this proposed rule would not impose a substantial cost increase on 
small mines.
    MSHA has prepared a Preliminary Regulatory Economic Analysis (PREA) 
and Regulatory Flexibility Certification Statement to fulfill the 
requirements of E.O. 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This 
PREA is available from MSHA upon request and is posted on our Internet 
Homepage at www.msha.gov.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification Statement

    Based on MSHA's analysis of costs and benefits, the Agency 
certifies that this proposed rule would not impose a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Factual Basis for Certification
    General approach: The Agency's analysis of impacts on ``small 
entities'' begins with a ``screening'' analysis. The screening compares 
the estimated compliance costs of the proposed rule for small mine 
operators in the affected sector to the estimated revenues for that 
sector. When estimated compliance costs are less than 1 percent of 
estimated revenues (for the size categories considered) the Agency 
believes it is generally appropriate to conclude that there is no 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. When 
estimated compliance costs approach or exceed 1 percent of revenue, it 
tends to indicate that further analysis may be warranted. The Agency 
welcomes comment on its approach in this regard.
    Derivation of costs and revenues: In the case of this proposed 
rule, because the compliance costs must be absorbed by the nonmetal 
mines affected by this rule, the Agency decided to focus its attention 
exclusively on the relationship between costs and revenues for these 
mines, rather than looking at the entire metal and nonmetal mining 
sector as a whole.
    In deriving compliance costs there were areas where different 
assumptions had to be made for small mines in different employment 
sizes in order to account for the fact that the mining operations of 
small mines are not the same as those of large mines. For example, 
different assumptions for mine size categories were used to derive 
compliance costs concerning: the number of persons trained per mine and 
the number of training sessions a mine would have annually. In 
determining revenues for the nonmetal mines

[[Page 18502]]

affected by this rulemaking, MSHA multiplied the production data (in 
tons) by the price per ton of the commodity.
    The Agency welcomes comment on sources that can help it more 
accurately estimate revenues for the final rule or other rules confined 
to this sector.
    Results of screening analysis. As shown in Table V-1 with respect 
to the nonmetal mines affected by this rule that have 1 through 5 
workers, the estimated costs of the rule as a percentage of their 
revenues are 0.30 percent. For nonmetal mines covered by this rule that 
have 6 through 19 workers, the estimated costs of the rule as a 
percentage of their revenues are 0.13 percent. For nonmetal mines 
covered by this rule that have 20 or more workers, the estimated costs 
of the rule as a percentage of their revenues are 0.03 percent. 
Finally, for all nonmetal mines covered by this rule (which are mines 
that have 500 or less workers), the estimated costs of the rule as a 
percentage of their revenues are 0.09 percent.
    In every case, the impact of the proposed compliance costs is 
substantially less than 1 percent of revenues, well below the level 
suggesting that the proposed rule might have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, MSHA has certified 
that there is no such impact for small entities that mine the 
commodities that are covered by this rule.
    As required under the law, MSHA is complying with its obligation to 
consult with the Chief Counsel for Advocacy on this proposed rule, and 
on the Agency's certification of no significant economic impact on the 
mines affected by this rule. Consistent with Agency practice, notes of 
any meetings with the Chief Counsel's office on this proposed rule, or 
any written communications, will be placed in the rulemaking record. 
The Agency will continue to consult with the Chief Counsel's office as 
the rulemaking process proceeds.

                        Table V-1.--Exempt Nonmetal Mines Covered by the Proposed Rule a
                                             [Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Costs as
                         Employment size                             Estimated       Estimated     percentage of
                                                                       costs        revenues b       revenues
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1-5)...........................................................           5,857       1,949,366            0.30
(6-19)..........................................................           5,883       4,555,543            0.13
(20 or more)....................................................           3,154       9,756,081            0.03
All Minesc......................................................          14,894      16,260,990           0.09
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a All mines covered by the proposed rule are surface mines.
b Data for revenues derived from U.S. Department of the Interior/U.S. Geological Survey. Mining and Quarrying
  Trends, 1997 Annual Review. 1997. Tables 2 and 3.
c Every mine affected by rule has 500 or fewer employees.

Compliance Costs
    MSHA estimates that the total net cost of the proposed new 30 CFR 
part 46 training requirements would be approximately $16.2 million 
annually, of which about $14.9 million would be borne by mine 
operations in the following surface nonmetal mining sectors: shell 
dredging, sand, gravel, stone, clay, colloidal phosphate, and 
limestone. Since fiscal year 1980, Congress has prohibited MSHA from 
enforcing existing MSHA health and safety training regulations in 30 
CFR part 48 at mines (``exempt mines'') in these sectors of the surface 
nonmetal mining industry. The exempt mines that are not currently in 
compliance with the existing part 48 training requirements would incur 
costs of approximately $17 million annually to comply with the proposed 
rule, while those currently in compliance with the existing part 48 
training requirements would derive savings of approximately $2.1 
million annually.
    Over the past 20 years, MSHA has consistently categorized a mine as 
being small if it employs fewer than 20 workers and as being large if 
it employs 20 or more workers. For the purposes of this PREA, however, 
MSHA has identified three mine size categories based on the number of 
employees, which are relevant to the estimation of the cost of the 
proposed rule: (1) Mines employing 5 or fewer workers; (2) mines 
employing between 6 and 19 workers; and (3) mines employing 20 or more 
workers. These mine categories are important because they are believed 
to have significantly different compliance rates for existing part 48 
training requirements. For this proposed rule, MSHA estimates that the 
following percentages of exempt mines by size category are currently 
not in compliance with existing part 48 requirements: 60 percent of 
mines with 5 or fewer workers; 40 percent of mines with between 6 and 
19 workers; and 20 percent of mines with 20 or more workers.
    In 1997, there were 10,152 exempt mines covered by the proposed 
rule. MSHA estimates that the average cost per exempt mine to comply 
with the proposed rule would be approximately $1,500 annually. For the 
5,297 exempt mines with 5 or fewer workers, MSHA estimates that the 
average cost of the proposed rule per mine would be approximately 
$1,100 annually. For the 3,498 exempt mines with between 6 and 19 
employees, MSHA estimates that the average cost of the proposed rule 
per mine would be approximately $1,700 annually. For the 1,357 exempt 
mines with 20 or more employees, MSHA estimates that the average cost 
of the proposed rule per mine would be approximately $2,300 annually.
    These costs per mine may be slightly misleading insofar as the 
exempt mines currently in compliance with part 48 training requirements 
would also be substantially in compliance with the proposed rule and 
would therefore incur no compliance costs. In fact, as noted above, 
these mines would derive savings of approximately $2.1 million annually 
as a result of the proposed rule. For the exempt mine operators 
(including independent contractors that employ miners) not currently in 
compliance with part 48 training requirements, the annual cost of 
complying with the proposed rule would, on average, be approximately 
$1,800 per mine operator with 5 or fewer workers; $4,400 per mine 
operator with between 6 and 19 workers; and $15,500 per mine operator 
with 20 or more workers.
    Table IV-1 from the PREA summarizes the yearly costs of the 
proposed rule by mine size and by provision.

[[Page 18503]]



                                         Table IV-1.--Summary of Yearly Compliance Costs for the Proposed Rule *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Mines with 1-5  Mines with 6-19   Mines with 20+   Total cost for   Total cost for
               Requirement/provision                   employees        employees        employees        all mines      other parties      Total cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  46.3........................................          $18,567           $8,102           $3,013          $29,682             $841          $30,523
Sec.  46.5........................................        2,431,069        1,943,402          762,385        5,136,856  ...............        5,136,856
Sec.  46.6........................................          389,353          281,137           99,589          770,079  ...............          770,079
Sec.  46.7........................................          225,783          450,693          441,197        1,117,672  ...............        1,117,672
Sec.  46.8........................................        2,131,047        2,520,492        1,482,488        6,134,027  ...............        6,134,027
Sec.  46.9........................................           81,563          173,352          168,280          423,195  ...............          423,195
Sec.  46.11.......................................          579,807          506,046          196,788        1,282,641        1,282,641        2,565,282
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.......................................        5,857,188        5,883,255        3,153,740       14,894,153        1,283,482       16,177,635
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Source: Table IV-12, Table IV-17, Table IV-19, Table IV-20; Table IV-23, Table IV-25, and Table IV-26.

Benefits
    Safety and health professionals from all sectors of industry 
recognize that training is a critical element of an effective safety 
and health program. Training informs miners of safety and health 
hazards inherent in the workplace and enables them to identify and 
avoid such hazards. Training becomes even more important in light of 
certain factors that can exist when production demands increase, such 
as an influx of new and less experienced miners and mine operators; 
longer work hours to meet production demands; and increased demand for 
contractors who may be less familiar with the dangers on mine property.
    Although there may be some differences in production technology and 
the production environment between the exempt mining industry and other 
surface nonexempt mining industries, the data presented in Chapter III 
of the PREA show that the lack of training in exempt mines contributes 
significantly to the disproportionate number of fatalities that occur 
at such mines. From 1993 to 1997, there were 200 fatalities at surface 
mines, of which 163 occurred at exempt mines. Thus, exempt mines 
accounted for 82 percent of all fatalities at surface mines. During the 
same period, however, employees at exempt mines accounted for only 64 
percent of the total number of hours worked at surface mines.
    One of the major reasons that exempt mines experience a higher 
fatality rate than the surface mining industry as a whole is that 
smaller operations, those which employ fewer than 20 workers, make up 
the vast majority of exempt mines. These small operations have the 
highest rates of noncompliance with part 48 training and, not 
surprisingly, the highest fatality rates.
    It is plausible to assert that at least some of these fatalities 
may have been prevented if victims had received appropriate, basic 
miner safety training. Similarly, MSHA believes that compliance with 
the requirements of this proposed training rule would, in turn, reduce 
the number of fatalities at exempt mines. As discussed in greater 
detail in Chapter III of the PREA, MSHA estimates that compliance with 
the proposed rule would prevent about 10 fatalities per year. Although 
not quantified, MSHA further expects that better trained exempt miners 
would have a positive impact on reducing mining accidents, injuries, 
and illnesses. MSHA believes that this proposed rule would make 
training more responsive to the needs of the industry and more 
effective for individual miners, thereby raising the compliance rate 
and reducing mine injuries and fatalities.

IV. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing the Intergovernmental 
Partnership

    Executive Order (E.O.) 12875 requires executive agencies and 
departments to reduce unfunded mandates on State, local, and tribal 
governments; to consult with these governments prior to promulgation of 
any unfunded mandate; and to develop a process that permits meaningful 
and timely input by State, local, and tribal governments in the 
development of regulatory proposals containing a significant unfunded 
mandate. E.O. 12875 also requires executive agencies and departments to 
increase flexibility for State, local, and tribal governments to obtain 
a waiver from Federal statutory or regulatory requirements.
    There are 152 sand and gravel, surface limestone, and stone 
operations that are run by State, local, or tribal governments for the 
construction and repair of highways and roads. We believe that all of 
these state-owned mines are in compliance with the proposed rule's 
provisions. The Agency specifically solicits comments and any data to 
either support or refute this assumption.

V. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    We have determined that, for purposes of section 202 of the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, this proposed rule does not 
include any federal mandate that may result in increased expenditures 
by State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate of more than 
$100 million, or increased expenditures by the private sector of more 
than $100 million. Moreover, the Agency has determined that for 
purposes of section 203 of that Act, this proposed rule does not 
significantly or uniquely affect these entities.

Background

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was enacted in 1995. While much of 
the Act is designed to assist the Congress in determining whether its 
actions will impose costly new mandates on State, local, and tribal 
governments, the Act also includes requirements to assist federal 
agencies to make this same determination with respect to regulatory 
actions.

Analysis

    Based on the analysis in the Agency's PREA, the net compliance cost 
of this proposed rule for the surface nonmetal mine operators is about 
$14.9 million per year. Accordingly, there is no need for further 
analysis under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
    MSHA has concluded that small governmental entities are not 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the proposed regulation. MSHA 
estimates that approximately 185 sand and gravel, surface limestone, 
and stone operations are run by State, local, or tribal governments. 
The Agency believes that all of these state-owned mines are in 
compliance with the proposed rule's provisions.
    When MSHA issues the proposed rule, we will affirmatively seek 
input of any State, local, and tribal government which may be affected 
by this

[[Page 18504]]

rulemaking. This would include state and local governmental entities 
that operate sand and gravel, surface limestone, and stone operations 
in the construction and repair of highways and roads. MSHA will mail a 
copy of the proposed rule to approximately 185 such entities.

VI. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

    In accordance with E.O. 13045, MSHA has evaluated the environmental 
health and safety effects of the proposed rule on children. MSHA has 
determined that the proposed rule would have no effect on children.

VII. Executive Order 13084 (Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments)

    MSHA certifies that the proposed rule would not impose substantial 
direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments.

VIII. Statutory and Rulemaking Background

    Until 1977, the metal and nonmetal mining industries and the coal 
mining industry were covered by separate occupational health and safety 
statutes. The Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 (1969 
Coal Act) governed the coal mining industry. The Federal Metal and 
Nonmetallic Mine Safety Act of 1966 (1966 Metal Act) governed the metal 
and nonmetal mining industries. The 1966 Metal Act was the first 
federal statute directly regulating non-coal mines. The 1969 Coal Act 
authorized promulgation of mandatory safety and health standards for 
coal mines, but the safety and health regulations promulgated under the 
1966 Metal Act for metal and nonmetal mines were largely advisory.
    Passage of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (1977 
Act), 30 U.S.C. 801 et seq.--

    (1) placed coal mines and metal and nonmetal mines under a 
single statute;
    (2) substantially increased the health and safety protections 
afforded all miners, but particularly metal and nonmetal miners; and
    (3) applied to all mining and mineral processing operations in 
the United States, regardless of size, number of employees, or 
method of extraction.

Thus, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), the agency 
charged with carrying out the mandates of the 1977 Mine Act, regulates 
and inspects two-person sand and gravel pits, as well as large 
underground coal mines and processing plants employing hundreds of 
miners.
    Neither the 1969 Coal Act nor the 1966 Metal Act contained 
comprehensive requirements for health and safety training of miners. 
However, in the 1977 Mine Act, Congress clearly recognized training as 
an important tool for preventing accidents and avoiding unsafe and 
unhealthful working conditions in the nation's mines. Consistent with 
this determination, section 115 of the 1977 Act directed the Secretary 
of Labor to promulgate regulations requiring that mine operators 
subject to the Act establish a safety and health training program for 
their miners.
    MSHA published regulations in 30 CFR part 48 on October 13, 1978 
(43 FR 47453), implementing section 115 of the 1977 Mine Act. At that 
time, certain segments of the mining industry strongly believed that 
the new training regulations were designed for large and highly 
technical operations and, therefore, were inappropriate and impractical 
for smaller surface nonmetal mines. Industry representatives expressed 
their concern over the difficulties that many small nonmetal operators 
would have in complying with part 48 and requested relief from its 
comprehensive specifications.
    In 1979, various segments of the metal and nonmetal mining industry 
raised concerns with Congress regarding the appropriateness of applying 
the requirements of part 48 to their operations. Congress responded by 
inserting language in the Department of Labor's appropriations bill 
that prohibited the expenditure of appropriated funds to enforce 
training requirements at approximately 10,200 surface nonmetal work 
sites. Congress has inserted this language into each Department of 
Labor appropriations bill since fiscal year 1980. This language 
specifically prohibits the use of appropriated funds to:

    * * * carry out Sec. 115 of the Federal Mine Safety and Health 
Act of 1977 or to carry out that portion of Sec. 104(g)(1) of such 
Act relating to the enforcement of any training requirements, with 
respect to shell dredging, or with respect to any sand, gravel, 
surface stone, surface clay, colloidal phosphate, or surface 
limestone mine.

This language remains in place under our appropriations contained in 
the Omnibus Appropriations Act for 1999, P.L. 105-277, signed by the 
President on October 21, 1998. The 1999 training rider, however, 
authorizes us to expend funds to propose and promulgate final training 
regulations by September 30, 1999, for operations affected by the 
prohibition.

IX. General Discussion

    Crushed stone and sand and gravel account for the majority of 
operations where we cannot enforce training requirements. The United 
States Geological Survey, United States Department of the Interior 
(USGS), derives domestic production data for crushed stone and sand and 
gravel from voluntary surveys of U.S. producers. USGS makes these data 
available in quarterly Mineral Industry Surveys and in annual Mineral 
Commodities Summaries. Annual crushed stone tonnage ranks first in the 
nonfuel minerals industry, with annual sand and gravel tonnage ranking 
second. USGS data show that domestic production of sand and gravel and 
crushed stone increased every year between 1991 and 1999, an indication 
of the continuing strong demand for construction aggregates in the 
United States.
    The number of hours worked at sand and gravel and crushed stone 
operations has been increasing steadily since 1991. In 1991, the hours 
worked at crushed stone operations totaled approximately 104 million 
employee-hours, rising to 117 million employee-hours in 1997. 
Similarly, the number of employee-hours at sand and gravel operations 
rose from approximately 65 million in 1991 to 72 million in 1997. Based 
on hours reported for the first nine months of 1998, the total hours 
worked for 1998 will exceed the total hours worked in 1997. Although 
some of the increase in hours worked may result from longer workdays, 
the data strongly suggest that the aggregates industry workforce is 
growing.
    Crushed stone and sand and gravel are essential and used widely in 
all major construction activities, including highway, road, and bridge 
construction and repair projects, as well as residential and 
nonresidential construction. Although crushed stone is also used as a 
basic raw material in agricultural, and chemical and metallurgical 
processes, it is used mostly by the construction industry. The 
construction industry also is by far the largest consumer of sand and 
gravel. Consequently, the level of construction activity largely 
determines the demand for, and resulting production levels of, these 
aggregate materials.
    On June 9, 1998, President Clinton signed the Transportation Equity 
Act for the 21st Century, commonly known as ``TEA-21'' (Pub. L. 105-
178), which authorizes highway, highway safety, transit, and other 
surface transportation programs for the fiscal years 1998 to 2003. The 
demand for materials

[[Page 18505]]

produced by the surface nonmetal mining industry is anticipated to 
increase substantially due to, in significant part, transportation 
infrastructure construction resulting from the recent enactment of TEA-
21. TEA-21 builds on the initiatives established in the Intermodal 
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), which was the 
last major authorizing legislation for surface transportation. As the 
largest public works legislation in the nation's history, appropriating 
almost $218 billion for highway and transit programs, TEA-21 provides a 
40 percent funding increase over the ISTEA levels for such programs.
    In addition to the passage of TEA-21, other factors may also 
contribute to the continued growth in construction activity and, thus, 
the demand for aggregate materials. These include a healthy U.S. 
economy in general, low interest rates, and adverse weather conditions, 
such as from El Nino and La Nina, which have damaged and destroyed 
homes, roads, and bridges in various parts of the country.
    Since fiscal year 1980, the year in which the congressional 
appropriations rider took effect, more than 600 miners have been killed 
in occupationally related incidents at mines where we cannot enforce 
miner training requirements (``exempt mines''). The rider affects 
approximately 10,200 surface nonmetal mines and 120,000 miners. 
Approximately 9,200 of these sites are surface aggregate operations 
(sand and gravel and crushed stone); the remainder are surface 
operations mining other commodities such as clay or colloidal 
phosphate.
    Our data indicate that, of the 200 miners involved in fatal 
accidents at surface metal and nonmetal mines from 1993 to 1997, about 
80% (163 miners) worked at exempt mines. During this same period, the 
annual number of fatal accidents at exempt mines almost doubled (from 
24 fatalities in 1993 to 45 fatalities in 1997). In each of the years 
1996 and 1997, 90% of fatalities at surface metal and nonmetal mines 
occurred at operations affected by the appropriations rider.
    A large proportion of exempt mines are smaller operations, which 
experience a higher fatality rate than larger operations. For example, 
of the 9,200 aggregate mines, approximately 4,900 employ five or fewer 
miners, and approximately 8,100 employ fewer than 20 miners. Long-term 
data show that mines with fewer than six employees are three times as 
likely to experience fatalities as mines with 20 or more workers. Also, 
mines with between six and 19 employees are more than two times as 
likely to have fatal accidents as operations with larger workforces.
    Several other reasons may contribute to the number of fatal 
accidents, including--

    (1) An influx of new and less experienced miners and mine 
operators;
    (2) Longer work hours to meet production demands; and
    (3) Increased demand for contractors who may be less familiar 
with the dangers on mine property. All of these factors are also 
more likely to exist when production activity accelerates to meet 
increases in demand.

    We believe that some of these fatalities may have been prevented if 
victims had received appropriate, basic miner safety training. Our 
fatal accident investigations show that the majority of miners involved 
in fatal accidents at mines affected by the rider had not received 
health and safety training that complied with the requirements of part 
48. In 1997, for example, 80% of fatal accident victims at exempt mines 
had not received health and safety training in accordance with part 48.
    Safety and health professionals from all sectors of industry 
recognize that training is a critical element of an effective safety 
and health program. Training of new employees, refresher training for 
experienced miners, and training for new tasks serve to inform workers 
of safety and health hazards inherent in the workplace and, just as 
important, to enable workers to identify and avoid those hazards. 
Congress clearly recognized these principles by specifically including 
training provisions in the 1977 Mine Act.
    The legislative history to the 1999 Appropriations Act reveals 
congressional concern with our inability to enforce training 
requirements for the exempt industries. The Senate Report associated 
with the Senate appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999 states:

    The Committee has continued language carried in the bill since 
fiscal year 1980 prohibiting the use of funds to carry out the 
training provisions of the Mine Act with respect to shell dredging, 
or with respect to any sand, gravel, surface stone, surface clay, 
colloidal phosphate, or surface limestone mine. The Committee 
recommends including this language for another year. However, the 
Committee finds the agency's data regarding the number of untrained 
workers in these industries who are exposed to the risks and hazards 
associated with the mining environment disturbing. Therefore, the 
Committee intends for fiscal year 1999 to be the last year this 
provision will be contained in the bill.

S. Rep. No. 105-300 for S. 2440, 105th Cong., 2d Sess., (1998).
    In the Conference Report to the Omnibus Appropriations Act for 
1999, Congress recognizes the high priority that employee safety and 
health training should have for the mining industry. However, Congress 
also notes that both we and the industries affected by the rider 
acknowledge that existing part 48 regulations do not address either the 
industries' or miners' needs in the most effective manner. In the 
Report, Congress reaffirms the priority to provide health and safety 
training for miners and directs us to expeditiously develop appropriate 
training regulations for miners working in these industries. The 
Conference Report also specifies that we must submit a progress report 
on the training regulations before appropriations hearings on our 
fiscal year 2000 budget and that we work cooperatively with labor and 
industry representatives to disseminate information on the revised 
training requirements in the period between the publication of the 
final rule and its effective date.
    The Conference Report language specifically instructs us to:

    * * * work with the affected industries, mine operators, 
workers, labor organizations, and other affected and interested 
parties to promulgate final training regulations for the affected 
industries by September 30, 1999. It is understood that these 
regulations are to be based on a draft submitted to MSHA by the 
Coalition [for Effective Miner Training] no later than February 1, 
1999.

H.R. Rep. No. 105-825 for H.R. 4328, 105th Cong., 2d Sess. (1998).
    The Coalition for Effective Miner Training (Coalition) consists of 
associations that represent industries currently exempt from miner 
training requirements. Coalition members include:

American Portland Cement Alliance
China Clay Producers Association
Dry Branch Kaolin Company
Georgia Crushed Stone Association
Georgia Mining Association
Indiana Mineral Aggregates Association
National Aggregates Association
National Industrial Sand Association
National Lime Association
National Stone Association
North Carolina Aggregates Association
Arizona Rock Products Association
Construction Materials Association of California
Sorptive Minerals Institute
United Metro Materials
Virginia Aggregates Association

    In 1998, the Coalition initiated a process to outline an 
alternative regulatory approach to part 48 for miner training in the 
exempt industries. This process included working with industry and 
labor organizations during the course of the development of its

[[Page 18506]]

proposal. On February 1, 1999, the congressionally established 
deadline, the Coalition presented us with a final joint industry/labor 
draft proposed rule.
    To facilitate the broadest possible input from the regulated 
public, we held seven preproposal public meetings throughout the 
country in December 1998 and January 1999 to solicit comments on 
development of the miner training rule for exempt mines. We selected 
meeting locations in California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, New York, 
Oregon, and Texas to provide as many miners, miners' representatives, 
and mine operators, both large and small, with the opportunity to 
attend at least one of the meetings and present their views. The public 
was encouraged to comment on any issue related to miner safety and 
health training at exempt mines. The Federal Register notice announcing 
the schedule of public meetings (63 FR 59258, November 3, 1998) listed 
key issues on which we were specifically interested in receiving 
comments. The issues included:

     Should certain terms, including ``new miner'' and 
``experienced miner'' be defined?
     Which subjects should be taught before a new miner is 
assigned work, even if the work is done under close supervision?
     Should training for inexperienced miners be given all 
at once, or over a period of time, such as several weeks or months?
     Should supervisors be subject to the same training 
requirements as miners?
     Should task training be required whenever a miner 
receives a work assignment that involves new and unfamiliar tasks?
     Should specific subject areas be covered during annual 
refresher training? If so, what subject areas should be included?
     Can the 8 hours of annual refresher training required 
by the Mine Act be completed in segments of training lasting less 
than 30 minutes?
     Should the records of training be kept by the mine 
operator at the mine site, or can they be kept at other locations?
     Should there be minimum qualifications for persons who 
conduct miner training? If so, what qualifications are appropriate?

    More than 220 individuals, including representatives from the 
Coalition, labor, contractors, mining associations, State agencies, 
small and large operators, and trainers, attended the meetings. Many of 
the attendees made oral presentations at the meeting, offering their 
views on effective miner training. In addition, we have received a 
number of written comments on how to ensure effective miner safety and 
health training.
    Speakers at the public meetings and other commenters generally 
emphasized the importance of developing a training rule that provides 
you with the flexibility to tailor your miner training programs to your 
particular operations and workforce. Several speakers underscored the 
need for practical and workable training requirements to meet the needs 
of the wide variety of mines that will be affected by the new training 
rule. Others commented on training for employees of independent 
contractors working on mine property, recordkeeping requirements, and 
appropriate qualifications for persons who will provide training. In 
addition, speakers at every meeting commented on the need for 
consistent implementation of the final training rule and the increased 
involvement of MSHA and the state grantees in providing training 
assistance and materials.

X. Discussion of the Proposed Rule

A. Statutory Requirements

    Section 115(a) of the 1977 Act authorizes the Secretary of Labor to 
promulgate miner health and safety training regulations; section 
115(a), (b), and (c) also include minimum requirements for miner 
training programs. The training regulations proposed here for miners 
working at shell dredging, sand, gravel, surface stone, surface clay, 
colloidal phosphate, and surface limestone operations are consistent 
with these minimum requirements, which provide among other things, 
that:

     Each operator must have a health and safety program 
approved by the Secretary of Labor;
     Each approved training program for new surface miners 
must provide for at least 24 hours of training in certain specific 
courses, including:
     The statutory rights of miners and their 
representatives under the Act;
    Use of self-rescue and respiratory devices, where appropriate;
    Hazard recognition;
    Emergency procedures;
    Electrical hazards;
    First aid;
    Walkaround training; and
    The health and safety aspects of the task to which the miner 
will be assigned;
     Each approved training program must provide for at 
least eight hours of refresher training every 12 months for all 
miners;
     Miners reassigned to new tasks must receive task 
training prior to performing that task;
     New miner training and new task training must include a 
period of training as closely related as is practicable to the 
miner's work assignment;
     Training must be provided during normal working hours;
     During training, miners must be paid at their normal 
rate of compensation and reimbursed for any additional cost for 
attending training;
     Upon completion of each training program, each operator 
must certify, on a form approved by the Secretary, that the miner 
has received the specified training in each subject area of the 
approved health and safety training plan;
     A certificate for each miner must be maintained by the 
operator, and be available for inspection at the mine site;
     A copy of the certificate must be given to each miner 
at the completion of the training;
     When a miner leaves the operator's employ, the miner is 
entitled to a copy of his or her health and safety training 
certificates;
     False certification by an operator that training was 
given is punishable under section 110(a) and (f) of the 1977 Mine 
Act; and
     Each health and safety training certificate must 
indicate on its face, in bold letters, printed in a conspicuous 
manner, that such false certification is so punishable.

    The proposed training rule takes a performance-oriented approach, 
where possible, to afford currently exempt operations, particularly 
small operations, the flexibility to tailor miner training to their 
particular needs and methods of operation. For example, the proposal 
would give you the latitude to choose many of the topics addressed in 
training and the amount of time to be spent on each topic. Also it 
would allow you to keep training records in a format of your choice, as 
long as the records include the minimum information specified in the 
rule.

B. Summary of Proposed Rule

    We currently anticipate that the part 46 final rule will be 
consistent with existing part 48 training requirements, so that those 
of you who have implemented a safety and health training program that 
complies with part 48 would not have to alter your programs to comply 
with proposed part 46. However, we request comment on whether the final 
rule should specifically allow you the option of complying with the 
requirements of part 48, in lieu of part 46.
    The proposed rule would require you to develop and implement a 
written training plan that includes programs for training new and 
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 by 
us and would not be required to be submitted to us for formal review, 
unless you, the miners, or miners' representative requests it.
    The proposal would require new miners to receive 24 hours of 
training within 60 days of employment. Instruction in four specific 
areas must be provided before the miner begins work--


[[Page 18507]]


    (1) Introduction to the work environment;
    (2) Recognition and avoidance of hazards at the mine;
    (3) Escape and emergency evacuation plans in effect at the mine, 
and firewarning signals and firefighting procedures; and
    (4) Health and safety aspects of the tasks to be assigned.

    The remainder of new miner training would be required to be 
completed within 60 days, and would address, at a minimum, the subjects 
specified in section 115 of the Mine Act.
    Under the proposal, newly-hired experienced miners would receive 
instruction, before beginning work, in the same four topics required to 
be covered for new miners before they begin work. Newly-hired 
experienced miners would receive annual refresher training within 90 
days, including instruction on several specific topics.
    Every 12 months, all miners would receive no less than eight hours 
of refresher training, which at a minimum would address major changes 
at the mine. Under the proposal, you would have the flexibility to 
determine the other subject areas to be covered in refresher training.
    The proposal would require new task training for every miner before 
the miner is assigned to a task for which he or she has no previous 
experience or which has changed. Site-specific hazard training would be 
required for persons who do not fall within the definition of ``miner'' 
and who would therefore not be required to receive comprehensive 
training (i.e., new miner training or newly-hired experienced miner 
training, as appropriate). The proposal would also require site-
specific hazard training for employees of independent contractors who 
have received comprehensive training but who need orientation in the 
hazards of the mine where they will be working.
    You would be required to certify that a miner has received required 
training and retain a copy of each miner's certificate for the duration 
of the miner's employment and for 12 months after the employment ends. 
Under the proposal, you could use our existing form for the 
certification (MSHA Form 5000-23) or maintain the certificate in 
another format, so long as it contains the minimum information listed 
in the proposal. You would also be required to maintain a copy of the 
current training plan in effect at the mine. You would be allowed the 
flexibility of keeping training records at the mine site or at a 
different location, but would be required to provide copies of the 
records to us and to miners and their representatives upon request.
    Unlike part 48, we would not approve training instructors under the 
proposal. Instead, training could be provided by a competent person--
someone with sufficient ability, training, knowledge, or experience in 
a specific area, who would also be able to evaluate the effectiveness 
of the training provided.
    The proposal would adopt the Mine Act requirement that miners be 
trained during normal work hours and compensated at normal rates of 
pay. Miners would also be reimbursed for incidental costs, such as 
mileage, meals, and lodging, if training is given at a location other 
than the normal place of work.
    The proposal would allow you, where appropriate, to substitute 
equivalent training required by OSHA or other federal or state agencies 
to satisfy your training obligations under part 46.
    Finally, the proposal would address responsibility for training and 
would vest primary responsibility for site-specific hazard training 
with the production-operator. Additionally, independent contractors who 
employ miners required to receive comprehensive training under the 
proposal would be primarily responsible for ensuring that their 
employees satisfy these requirements.

C. Section-by-Section Discussion

    The following section-by-section portion of the preamble discusses 
each proposed provision. The text of the proposed rule is included at 
the end of the document.
Section 46.1  Scope
    This section provides that the provisions of part 46 set forth 
mandatory requirements for the training and retraining of miners at all 
shell dredging, sand, gravel, surface stone, surface clay, colloidal 
phosphate, or surface limestone mines.
    Corresponding changes for part 48 have been included in this 
proposal and are intended to make clear to the mining community that 
part 46 training requirements will apply at those mines which have been 
subject to the congressional appropriations rider since fiscal year 
1980. This section is consistent with a similar provision in the draft 
proposal of the Coalition for Effective Miner Training.
    Commenters should be aware that the language of the rider describes 
the exempt operations in broad terms. It does not attempt to list each 
type of operation that is included within the category listed. For 
example, operations that produce marble, granite, sandstone, slate, 
shale, traprock, kaolin, cement, feldspar, and lime are also exempt 
from enforcement under the rider and would be affected by the 
requirements of this rule.
    Several commenters were of the opinion that the new training 
regulations for mines that are currently exempt from enforcement should 
be incorporated into part 48. However, to avoid confusion, we have 
proposed these regulations under a separate part of Title 30 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations.
    Although the requirements of this proposed part would amend the 
training requirements for surface miners in part 48, part 48 has not 
been enforced at exempt mines for almost 20 years. The proposed rule 
takes a more flexible and performance-oriented approach than similar 
provisions in part 48. For example, the proposed rule would not require 
our traditional approval of training plans; would give you greater 
latitude in determining what subjects should be included in your miner 
training programs and in recordkeeping; and would not mandate a formal 
instructor approval program.
    We are mindful of our statutory obligation not to reduce the 
protections provided to miners under our existing standards. Under 
section 101(a)(9) of the 1977 Act, ``[n]o mandatory health or safety 
standard promulgated under this title shall reduce the protection 
afforded miners by an existing mandatory health or safety standard.'' 
Although the proposal would allow greater flexibility to you in 
training plan content and implementation, protection to miners would 
not be reduced. Our approach in this proposal is to allow you, with the 
assistance of miners and their representatives, to tailor your miner 
training programs to the specific needs of your operations and 
workforce. In this way, training received by miners would be relevant 
to their workplace and would be effective in providing them with the 
information and instruction that will enhance their ability to work in 
a safe and healthful manner. Several commenters stated that the 
flexibility to design their training programs to address the most 
significant safety and health concerns at their mines would enhance the 
overall benefits of training for their miners.
    It should be noted that this proposal does not affect those mines 
not subject to the rider, which would include all underground metal and 
nonmetal mines, all surface metal mines, all coal mines, and a few 
surface nonmetal mines, such as surface boron and talc mines. Operators 
at those mines will continue to be responsible for complying with the 
miner training provisions in part 48.

[[Page 18508]]

Section 46.2  Definitions
    This section includes definitions for terms used in proposed part 
46. These definitions are provided to assist the mining community in 
understanding the requirements of the proposed rule. We are interested 
in comments on whether the definitions, as proposed, are appropriate 
and clearly expressed. Commenters should also identify any other terms 
they believe should be defined in the final rule.
    Act. All references to the ``Act'' in the proposal refer to the 
Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 801 et seq.
    Competent person. Under the proposal, training would be conducted 
by a ``competent person'' designated by you. ``Competent person'' is 
defined in the proposal as a person who has the ability, training, 
knowledge, or experience to provide training to miners on a particular 
subject. Under this definition, the competent person must be able to 
evaluate whether the training given to miners is effective.
    This definition does not specify the type or extent of ability, 
training, knowledge, or experience needed for a person to be 
``competent'' and, therefore, allowed to provide training under the 
rule. This is consistent with the performance-oriented approach taken 
in the proposal. As addressed in greater detail in the preamble under 
Sec. 46.4, a number of commenters recommended that persons who provide 
training receive, at a minimum, some instruction to ensure that they 
are able to instruct miners effectively. The proposal does not adopt 
this recommendation. Instead, we leave it to your discretion to 
determine whether the person is competent to provide training to miners 
in one or more subjects.
    We specifically solicit comments on the definition of ``competent 
person,'' whether the final rule should establish specific minimum 
qualifications for training instructors, and whether the final rule 
should require that training instructors be approved by us, similar to 
the approach taken in the part 48 regulations.
    Experienced miner. A number of commenters addressed the definition 
of the term ``experienced miner.'' Several commenters suggested that 
part 46 should adopt the definition of ``experienced miner'' in the 
part 48 training regulations. Recent revisions to part 48 (63 FR 53750, 
October 6, 1998) define ``experienced miner'' as a person with at least 
12 months of experience who has completed new miner training. Other 
commenters recommended that a miner be considered experienced if he or 
she either has received new miner training or has accumulated at least 
12 months of mining experience or the equivalent. One commenter stated 
that the definition of experienced miner should allow miners with 
experience to return to mining after an extended absence or lay-off and 
still be considered experienced.
    A miner would be ``experienced'' under the proposal if he or she 
satisfies one of three definitions. First, paragraph (c)(1)(i) provides 
that an experienced miner is a person employed as a miner on the date 
of publication of this proposal. Most regularly employed miners would 
be considered ``experienced'' under this definition, and therefore not 
subject to the rule's new miner training requirements. This is similar 
to the approach taken when part 48 first took effect in 1978, which 
provided that all persons employed as miners on the rule's effective 
date were experienced miners, regardless of the length of their mining 
experience or the extent of their safety and health training. Under the 
proposed definition, most miners working on the date of the proposed 
rule will have accrued several months of experience by the publication 
date of the final rule, and even more experience by the rule's 
effective date.
    Under the proposed definition, however, a miner with many years of 
experience who happens to be out of work on the date of the proposed 
rule would not be an ``experienced miner''. We are uncertain as to 
whether this would have an adverse impact at some operations, 
particularly in light of the intermittent and seasonal nature of many 
operations that will be covered by the final rule. We are therefore 
interested in whether commenters believe that the rule should address 
this situation in some fashion and, if so, what specific provisions 
should be included in the final rule to deal with this issue.
    A miner would also be experienced under paragraph (c)(1)(ii) if he 
or she begins employment at a mine after the date of publication of the 
proposal but before the effective date of the final rule, and has 
received new miner training consistent with the requirements proposed 
under Sec. 46.5 or with existing requirements for surface miners at 
Sec. 48.25. This would provide flexibility to those of you who are 
already providing training to your miners under part 48, or who wish to 
provide training under the more performance-oriented requirements of 
proposed part 46, before the final rule takes effect. This provision is 
not intended to require compliance with the proposed rule, but would be 
a voluntary option for those of you who want to get an early start on 
developing a training program and in complying with the rule.
    Under paragraph (c)(1)(iii) a person who has completed 24 hours of 
new miner training under either Sec. 46.5 or Sec. 48.25 and who has at 
least 12 months of surface mining or equivalent experience would be an 
experienced miner. This definition is more stringent than the approach 
suggested by a number of commenters or in the Coalition draft, which 
would define ``experienced miner'' as a person who either has 12 months 
of experience or who has received the required 24 hours of new miner 
training, but not both. The definition in the proposed rule reflects 
our preliminary determination that an ``experienced miner'' should have 
both training and work experience. Additionally, we also recognize that 
it would be unduly burdensome and impractical to require all miners who 
are currently working at affected mines to receive new miner training. 
Many of these miners have extensive experience in the industry and 
should not be treated as new inexperienced miners. Consistent with 
this, under paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii), the majority of miners who 
have been trained or who have relevant work experience would be 
considered experienced when the final rule goes into effect.
    The proposal would allow a miner to accumulate the necessary 12 
months of experience in non-consecutive months. This would respond to 
the concerns of several commenters that the intermittent and seasonal 
nature of many segments of the industry would make it difficult, if not 
impossible, for most miners to accrue the necessary experience in one 
continuous period.
    The proposed definition would also allow equivalent experience to 
be counted towards the 12-month requirement. We intend that equivalent 
experience would include such things as work at a construction site or 
other types of jobs where the miner has job duties similar to the 
duties at the mine where he or she is employed. Commenters stated that 
similar work experience should be considered if the work performed is 
equivalent to the tasks that the person will perform at the mine. 
Commenters stated that many experienced construction workers have 
learned to work safely at construction sites that pose many of the same 
types of hazards that they could be exposed to at a mine site. Under 
the proposal, you would determine whether the miner's experience is 
equivalent and therefore whether the miner is ``experienced.'' We 
request comments on the acceptance of

[[Page 18509]]

equivalent experience under this paragraph in determining who is an 
``experienced miner.''
    Paragraph (c)(2) provides that an experienced miner will retain 
that status permanently under part 46. This responds to several 
commenters who indicated that it was not uncommon for miners to be away 
from the mining industry for extended periods of time, either because 
the miners took jobs in another industry, such as construction, or 
because the miners had been laid off. These commenters recommended that 
the rule make clear that an absence from work in the mining industry 
would not result in miners losing their status as experienced miners. 
This paragraph responds to these concerns and is also the approach 
taken in the recent revisions to part 48. Once a miner attains the 
status of an ``experienced miner,'' he or she would be considered 
experienced permanently. However, under proposed Sec. 46.6, miners 
returning to mine work would be required to receive newly-hired 
experienced miner training and annual refresher training within 90 days 
of beginning work.
    Extraction or production. The definition of the term ``miner'' 
includes persons engaged in ``extraction or production.'' ``Extraction 
or production'' is defined in this section as the mining, removal, 
milling, crushing, screening, or sizing of minerals at a mine. This 
definition also includes the associated haulage of these materials at 
the mine. We request comments on whether this definition adequately 
describes the activities that should be considered part of the 
extraction and production processes at a mine.
    Hazard training. The proposed definition of ``hazard training'' is 
intended to provide examples of the type of instruction or information 
that you might address in providing this training to miners under 
proposed Sec. 46.11. ``Hazard training'' is defined as information or 
instructions on the hazards a person will be exposed to while on mine 
property, as well as on applicable emergency procedures. These hazards 
and procedures may include site-specific risks such as unique geologic 
or environmental conditions, traffic patterns, and restricted areas, as 
well as warning and evacuation signals, emergency procedures, or other 
special safety procedures. The purpose of this training is to ensure 
that those persons who are unfamiliar with the mine and with the 
hazards of the operation have been provided with enough information to 
avoid exposure to these hazards.
    Independent contractor. The proposal defines ``independent 
contractor'' as a person or entity that contracts to perform services 
at a mine under this part. This is consistent with the language of the 
Act, which includes independent contractors who perform services or 
construction at a mine within the definition of the term ``operator.''
    Miner. The proposal would define ``miner'' for purposes of part 46 
training more narrowly than the Mine Act, which defines ``miner'' in 
section 3(g) as any individual working at a mine. This allows the 
proposed rule to make a distinction between those ``miners'' who would 
be required to receive comprehensive training (that is, new miner 
training or newly-hired experienced miner training, as appropriate) and 
those persons who would be required to receive hazard training.
    A person would be considered a ``miner'' under the proposal if he 
or she works at a mine under this part and is engaged in mining 
operations integral to extraction or production. We gave serious 
consideration to including as ``miners'' persons who are regularly 
exposed to mine hazards, or maintenance or service workers who work at 
the mine for frequent or extended periods, consistent with the 
definition in part 48. However, we are seeking to include a definition 
in the final rule that is clearer than the existing part 48 definition.
    The definition of ``extraction or production'' includes the mining, 
milling, crushing, screening, or sizing of minerals, as well as the 
haulage of these materials. We intend that this definition include 
workers whose activities are integral to the extraction or production 
process, such as persons who are employed by the production-operator 
and who provide daily maintenance of mining equipment on the mine site. 
We do not intend to include workers who come onto mine property for 
short periods of time to perform services that are not integral to 
extraction or production, such as manufacturers' representatives who 
may be at the mine site infrequently to perform warranty service on 
mining equipment; this type of activity is usually conducted by a 
person whose presence at the mine site and exposure to typical mine 
hazards are limited. Although both types of workers perform maintenance 
on equipment, the extent of their exposure to mining operations and 
mine hazards is different, and the extent and type of training required 
would also be different under the proposal. 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 have 
concluded that these are the types of workers who should receive 
comprehensive training.
    We believe this is one of the more significant distinctions that 
should be made in this rule, and we solicit comment on this issue. 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 should include in the definition of ``miner'' 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 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 mine.
    Under the proposal, mine operators and supervisors would also be 
considered miners if they are engaged in extraction or production and 
would be covered by the same training requirements. This is in response 
to the statements by a number of commenters that there is no reason why 
supervisors should not be subject to the same training requirements as 
miners. Several commenters also recommended that training for 
supervisors be tailored to address their supervisory responsibilities. 
Although we agree that it would be appropriate for you to develop 
special training programs for your supervisory personnel, the proposal 
would not require it.
    Commenters should be aware that we intend that the requirements of 
this rule apply to construction workers who work at mines covered by 
the rule. Section 115(d) of the Act directs the Secretary of Labor to 
develop ``appropriate'' training regulations for construction workers. 
We have determined that this statutory provision does not prohibit the 
application of this part 46 standard to construction workers until we 
promulgate a separate training rule for those workers. Therefore, 
construction workers whose activities at the mine site are integral to 
extraction or production would be considered ``miners'' under this rule 
and must receive appropriate comprehensive training. For example, 
construction workers building a new crusher in an active quarry would 
be considered ``miners.'' All other construction workers at mine sites 
would be required to receive site-specific hazard training. We solicit 
comments on whether we should develop separate training standards 
specifically for construction workers

[[Page 18510]]

employed at mine sites, and if so, what type of training would be 
appropriate.
    New miner. The proposal defines a new miner as a person who has 
been newly hired who does not satisfy the definition of ``experienced 
miner.'' The definition of experienced miner is discussed in detail 
earlier in this section.
    Normal working hours. Under proposed Sec. 46.10, training would be 
conducted during ``normal working hours,'' as required by the Act. 
``Normal working hours'' is defined in this section as a period of time 
during which a miner is otherwise scheduled to work. This definition, 
adopted from part 48, also provides that the sixth or seventh working 
day may be used to conduct training, provided that the miner's work 
schedule has been established for a sufficient period of time to be 
accepted as a common practice. As discussed under Sec. 46.10 of the 
preamble, we intend that the schedule must have been in place long 
enough to provide reasonable assurance that the schedule change was not 
motivated by the desire to train miners on what had traditionally been 
a non-work day.
    We are interested in comments on whether these proposed provisions 
adequately address the issue of compensation and the scheduling of 
training.
    Operator. The proposed definition is consistent with the definition 
of ``operator'' in section 3(d) of the Act, and would include both 
production-operators (defined in this section as owners, lessees, or 
other persons who operate or control a mine) and independent 
contractors who perform services at a mine. The term ``operator'' is 
used throughout the proposed rule to refer to the person or entities 
responsible for providing health and safety training under part 46. 
However, separate definitions are provided for ``production-operator'' 
and ``independent contractor'' in proposed Sec. 46.2 to allow a 
distinction to be made in proposed Sec. 46.12 between the two types of 
operators and to address production-operators' and independent 
contractors' responsibilities for training.
    Production-operator. Production-operator is defined as any owner, 
lessee, or other person who operates, controls, or supervises a mine 
covered by this part. This would mean the person or entity that 
actually operates the mine as a whole, as opposed to an independent 
contractor who provides services. As noted earlier, both would be 
considered ``operators'' under the proposal.
    Task. The proposal defines ``task'' as a component of a job that is 
performed on a regular basis and that requires job knowledge. This 
definition is intended to identify the type of job duties that would be 
subject to the new task training requirements proposed under Sec. 46.7. 
Under that section, a miner must be provided with training in a task 
for which he or she has no previous experience, or which has been 
modified.
    We and us refer to the Mine Safety and Health Administration 
(MSHA). We have written the proposal in the more personal style 
advocated by the President's executive order on ``plain language,'' 
which, among other things, encourages the use of personal pronouns.
    You refers to production-operators and independent contractors, 
because they have primary responsibility for compliance with MSHA 
regulations.
Section 46.3  Training Plans
    This section of the proposal requires you to develop and implement 
a training plan and also addresses our approval of training plans, how 
and where a copy of the training plan must be maintained, and who has 
access to the plan.
    Section 115 of the Mine Act provides that mine operators shall have 
a health and safety training program that shall be ``approved by the 
Secretary [of Labor].'' A number of commenters and speakers at the 
public meetings supported flexible guidelines for plan content, 
emphasizing the wide variety in size and type of mining operations that 
will be covered by part 46 requirements. These speakers believed that 
the most effective training plans would be those that can be tailored 
to the particular operation, focusing, for example, on specific mine 
processes or hazards, or on the accident and injury experience at the 
mine. Other commenters stated that it had been their experience that 
the traditional approval process often did not enhance or ensure the 
quality of training plans. These commenters felt that resources saved 
by a less formal plan approval process could be directed elsewhere with 
greater benefits for miner safety and health.
    A number of commenters who believed that traditional approval by us 
would not improve the development of your training plans advocated some 
form of ``automatic'' approval that would eliminate the need for 
submission of a plan to us, saving time and reducing paperwork for both 
you and us. These commenters suggested that the rule provide that if a 
plan meets or exceeds reasonable standards, it would be considered 
approved. Other commenters supporting this approach stated that 
emphasis should be placed on assisting you in developing effective 
training plans, rather than concentrating on unnecessary paperwork. 
Some commenters stated that they had no problem with submitting plans 
to us for initial approval, but were concerned about a requirement for 
submission of plans to us for approval of small, essentially 
nonsubstantive changes to the plan, such as the identity of the 
instructors providing the training or the locations where training 
takes place.
    The draft proposal submitted to us by the Coalition would provide 
that any training plan that complies with the minimum requirements of 
section 115 of the Mine Act would be considered ``approved by the 
Secretary.'' Section 115 of the Act requires both that the plan be 
approved by us and that the plan comply with the minimum requirements 
in section 115. We have determined that in order for a plan to be 
considered approved by us, we must prescribe requirements in the 
proposal and the final rule beyond the minimum required in the Mine 
Act.
    In response to these considerations, the proposal provides that a 
plan would be considered ``approved by MSHA'' if it includes the 
minimum information listed in paragraph (b). This is consistent with 
the approach recommended by several commenters. Under this approach, 
plans that include the information listed in this section would be 
considered ``approved'' and would not be required to be submitted to us 
for review. Inspectors and other MSHA personnel who review your plan at 
the mine site would simply determine--

    (1) That you, in fact, have developed a written training plan;
    (2) That the written plan contains the minimum information 
specified in paragraph (b) of proposed Sec. 46.3; and
    (3) That the plan is being implemented consistent with the plan 
specifications.

    We have also included in the proposal an alternate process for plan 
approval, for those cases where a plan you developed does not include 
the minimum required information, where you may prefer to obtain 
traditional approval, or where the miners or miners' representative 
requests such approval.
    Paragraph (a) provides that you must develop and implement a 
written plan, approved by us under either paragraph (b) or (c), that 
contains effective programs for training new miners and newly-hired 
experienced miners, training miners for new tasks, annual refresher 
training, and hazard training. Although the language in section 115 of 
the Act does not explicitly state that a training plan must be in 
writing, we believe that it is inherently required by

[[Page 18511]]

the Act. We have included the term ``effective programs'' in the 
proposed rule to deal with instances where a training plan, as 
implemented, is inadequate or deficient. In such cases, we intend to 
determine how and why the training program falls short and assist you 
in revising your plan to address the deficiencies. We also intend that 
the plan be updated as needed, to reflect any changes in the mine's 
training program, such as changes in courses, teaching methods, 
instructors, methods of training evaluation, etc.
    Paragraph (b) provides that a training plan is considered approved 
by us if it contains the minimum information listed in paragraphs 
(b)(1) through (b)(5). This information includes--

    (1) The company name, mine name, and MSHA mine identification 
number;
    (2) The name and position of the person responsible for training 
at the mine, which may be the operator;
    (3) A general description of the teaching methods and course 
materials to be used in the training, including the subject areas 
that will be covered and the approximate time that will be spent on 
each subject area;
    (4) The persons who will provide training, and the subjects in 
which each person is competent to instruct; and
    (5) The evaluation procedures used to determine the 
effectiveness of the training.

    Our intention is that the information required will be sufficient 
to allow us to make a preliminary determination of your compliance with 
training requirements, without imposing an unnecessary paperwork or 
recordkeeping burden. We are interested in comments on whether the 
proposed approach will facilitate the development of effective training 
plans.
    The approach taken in the proposal for plan approval recognizes 
that, while our review of your written training plan 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 you in developing 
and providing quality training to your employees. Similarly, you and 
training providers would be able to focus on the development and 
administration of training plans tailored specifically to your needs 
rather than on traditional procedures to gain our approval.
    Under this approach, you would be free to make revisions to 
existing training plans without seeking our approval of those changes, 
so long as the plan continues to include the minimum information 
required. For example, you could change the identity of instructors, 
the subjects addressed as part of the training, or the scheduling of 
training, and you would not be required to submit these changes to us. 
This would address the statements of many commenters that requiring our 
approval of subsequent nonsubstantive plan changes was unduly 
burdensome and unnecessary.
    We specifically solicit comments on whether we should require 
information in addition to that listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through 
(b)(5) before we consider a plan approved. We are also interested in 
comments on whether we should require less information than what is 
proposed. Several commenters stated that the rule should require only 
that the training plan specify subject matter and the timing of the 
training, and that other information is unnecessary. We also solicit 
comments on allowing you to develop plans that are considered approved 
by us without traditional approval. We are particularly interested in 
whether commenters believe that a traditional plan approval process, 
similar to the process in part 48, is necessary to ensure that training 
plans meet minimum standards of quality, and why this may be true.
    Paragraph (c) provides that a plan that does not include the 
minimum information listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) must be 
approved by the Educational Field Services Division Regional Manager, 
or designee, for the region in which the mine is located. The term 
``Regional Manager'' refers to the Regional Manager in the Educational 
Field Services Division (EFS) of the Directorate of Educational Policy 
and Development (EPD). We will be moving the responsibility for the 
approval of new and modified training plans from District Managers in 
Coal and Metal and Nonmetal Mine Safety and Health to the EFS Regional 
Managers or their designees. The EFS Division is divided into an 
Eastern and a Western region.
    Under this paragraph, you may also voluntarily submit a plan for 
Regional Manager approval. We anticipate that the majority of plans 
developed under this part would satisfy the requirements of paragraph 
(b) and consequently would not be required to be submitted to us for 
traditional approval. However, we also recognize that some of you may 
develop effective training plans that do not fit squarely within the 
requirements of paragraph (b), and you may therefore need to submit 
your plans to us for approval. We also anticipate that some of you may 
prefer to obtain our traditional approval, to ensure that there is no 
question that your training plan satisfies minimum requirements. In 
response, the proposal does include a provision that would address 
these situations.
    Paragraph (c) also allows miners and their representatives to 
request our traditional approval if they choose. We expect that in most 
cases miners and their representatives will bring any concerns they may 
have about the training plan to your attention, and resolve it in that 
manner. However, there may be a few instances where miners or their 
representatives believe that direct involvement by us may be needed to 
resolve issues or concerns, and the proposal would address those 
situations.
    Paragraph (d) would require you to furnish the miners' 
representative, if any, with a copy of the training plan no later than 
two weeks before the plan is implemented or submitted to the Regional 
Manager. At mines where no miners' representative has been designated, 
a copy of the plan must either be posted at the mine or a copy provided 
to each miner at least two weeks before the plan is implemented or 
submitted to the Regional Manager for approval. This is intended to 
ensure that miners and their representatives are notified of the 
contents of your training plan before it goes into effect or is 
submitted to us for approval.
    We recognize that at many mines, particularly small operations, 
there may be no mine office and no appropriate place for posting the 
plan. The proposal therefore would allow a copy of the plan to be 
provided to each miner in lieu of posting. We are assuming that this 
requirement would not place a large burden on you, because mines where 
posting would be difficult or impractical would typically have a very 
small number of miners. However, we are interested in whether this 
assumption is correct, and we are also specifically interested in 
comments on whether this paragraph provides a practical and workable 
approach to informing miners and their representatives of training plan 
content.
    Although not explicitly stated in the proposal itself, we intend 
that you must provide miners or their representatives with copies of 
the training plan, and with the opportunity to submit comments or 
request approval by us, whenever major revisions are made to the plan. 
By ``major revisions'' we mean significant changes in course content or 
training methods, not minor alterations such as the identity of 
instructors or the duration of courses in certain subject areas. We 
request comment on whether the final rule should specifically require

[[Page 18512]]

notification of miners of plan revisions, and what type of revisions 
should require notification.
    Under paragraph (e), miners and their representatives have two 
weeks after the posting or receipt of the training plan to submit 
comments on the plan to you, or to the Regional Manager if the plan is 
before the Manager for approval. This is intended to provide miners and 
their representatives with a means to provide input on the training 
plan, either to you, if traditional approval is not being sought, or to 
the Regional Manager who is reviewing and approving the plan.
    Under paragraph (f), the Regional Manager must notify you and 
miners, or their representative in writing of the approval, or the 
status of the approval, of the training plan within 30 days after the 
date on which the training plan was submitted to us for approval.
    We are interested in comments on this process, specifically on 
whether the proposal provides sufficient flexibility to you in 
developing your plans, while at the same time ensuring that miners and 
their representatives have been allowed meaningful participation in the 
process.
    We considered adopting the traditional approval procedures already 
contained in part 48. We have instead proposed a more streamlined 
version of existing part 48 approval procedures. This approach reflects 
our expectation that the parties will be able to reach a satisfactory 
resolution of any concerns about the plan without the need for specific 
procedures. As indicated earlier, we anticipate that most of you will 
not seek our formal approval of your training plans, and that in most 
cases concerns of miners or their representatives will be resolved 
informally. In those limited cases where we become directly involved in 
plan approval, we intend for the Regional Manager to provide reasonable 
notice to you and miners or their representatives of the status of plan 
approval or perceived deficiencies in the plan and also to provide 
parties with a reasonable opportunity to express their views or offer 
solutions to the problem, without the need for detailed procedures.
    Nonetheless, we solicit comments on whether a detailed plan 
approval process, such as in Sec. 48.23, should be adopted in the final 
rule, to apply to those cases where traditional plan approval is 
sought.
    Paragraph (g) provides you, miners, and miners' representatives the 
right to appeal a Regional Manager's decision on a training plan to the 
Director for Educational Policy and Development. Consistent with the 
shifting of plan approval responsibility from Metal and Nonmetal Mine 
Safety and Health to EFS, a Regional Manager's decision on a plan will 
be reviewed on appeal by the Director for EPD.
    Under this paragraph, an appeal must be submitted in writing within 
30 days after notification of the Regional Manager's decision on the 
training plan. The Director for EPD will issue a decision on the appeal 
within 30 days after receipt of the appeal. We anticipate that this 
provision will be rarely used and expect that when a disagreement 
arises between us, you, and miners and their representatives about plan 
design or content, it can be resolved without the need for intervention 
of the Director for EPD. However, in those rare cases where the parties 
are unable to come to terms on the content of a particular training 
plan, the proposed rule would provide parties the option of seeking 
review from the Director for EPD. As indicated, parties have 30 days in 
which to file a written appeal of the Regional Manager's decision on a 
plan, and the Director for EPD has 30 days from the date of appeal to 
reach a decision.
    Paragraph (h) would require you to make available at the mine site 
a copy of the current training plan for inspection by us and for 
examination by miners and their representatives. If the training plan 
is not maintained at the mine site, you must have the capability to 
provide the plan upon request to us, the miners, or their 
representatives. Under this paragraph, you would have the flexibility 
to maintain your training plan at a location other than the mine site, 
provided that you are able to produce a copy of the plan upon request 
to our inspectors or miners and their representatives. A number of 
speakers at the public meetings indicated that there was no need for 
plans or other training records to be kept at the mine site, given that 
modern communications technology, such as electronic mail and fax 
machines, allow virtually instantaneous transmission of documents from 
one location to another. The proposal does not specify a time within 
which a copy of the plan must be produced after a request is made by us 
or miners; the expectation is that if you choose to maintain the plan 
away from the mine site, you should have the capability of producing 
the plan within a reasonable period of time. If you do not have such 
capability, you must maintain the plan at the mine site. We have taken 
this approach in the proposal for several reasons. It has been our 
experience that we may complete an inspection at a surface mine in less 
than one day. Although we wish to give you flexibility in 
recordkeeping, we do not want this to result in an inspector having to 
delay his or her departure from a mine site waiting for you to obtain a 
copy of the training plan. Similarly, inspectors should not be put in 
the position of having to return to a mine site the next day simply to 
inspect a copy of the training plan that was unavailable during the 
course of the inspection the day before. Additionally, miners and their 
representatives should not be required to wait to inspect the training 
plan in effect at the mine. We are interested in comments on whether 
this is the most practical approach. One possible alternative would be 
to require the plan to be produced within a reasonable period of time 
after the request is made, but in no case longer than one business day.
    A number of commenters focused on the type of assistance that we 
should provide to facilitate compliance with the final rule after it is 
published. Assistance, particularly for small operators, in developing 
training plans appropriate for their operations, was the subject of 
much comment. Several commenters suggested that we or other 
organizations implement a ``cafeteria-type'' approach for plan 
development, where you could choose among various training plan 
components to tailor a plan to your particular operation. For example, 
the plan options from which you might choose would include training 
components on subjects or curriculum that are suitable for a small sand 
and gravel operation, or for a typical limestone mine, or a shell 
dredging operation.
    We appreciate the commenters who are already giving thought to the 
types of resources that would provide the greatest benefit to the 
mining community in complying with the final training rule. We 
acknowledge that compliance assistance for the mining community will be 
a key element in the successful implementation of the final rule. We 
intend to provide extensive compliance assistance to you, not only 
through our staff in Metal and Nonmetal Mine Safety and Health, but 
also through our newly formed Educational Field Services Division; we 
also expect state grantees to play a significant role in assisting you 
in developing effective training plans and, at the same time, in 
satisfying the requirements of the final rule.
    To this end, we solicit comments on whether we should include 
examples of model training plans, appropriate for different types and 
sizes of mining operations, in a nonmandatory appendix to the final 
rule. We are also considering including such model plans in a 
compliance guide that we will be developing for the mining community

[[Page 18513]]

after publication of the final rule. We anticipate that other 
organizations, including state grantees and large operators, also may 
develop generic training plans and make them available to small 
operators to assist in training plan development. We are interested in 
commenters' suggestions for other types of compliance assistance that 
would be useful to the mining community.
Section 46.4  Training Program Instruction
    This section of the proposal--(1) would require you to ensure that 
training given under this part is consistent with the written training 
plan required under Sec. 46.3; (2) would require training to be 
presented by a competent person; and (3) would allow you to arrange for 
training to be provided by outside instructors. This section also 
responds to comments, including the draft of the Coalition, that the 
rule should allow the use of innovative training methods and should 
accept equivalent training, provided to satisfy the requirements of the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) or other federal 
or state agencies, to satisfy part 46 requirements. Finally, this 
section would permit short safety and health talks and other informal 
instruction to satisfy training requirements under this part, in 
response to a number of comments.
    Paragraph (a)(1) would clarify that training under part 46 must be 
conducted in accordance with your written training plan. This is 
intended to ensure that the training given under this part is 
consistent with the approach outlined in your plan, and is part of an 
organized scheme for comprehensive miner training.
    Paragraph (a)(2) provides that the training must be presented by a 
competent person. ``Competent person'' is defined in proposed Sec. 46.2 
as a person designated by you 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 asked for specific comments during the public meetings on 
whether the rule should establish minimum qualifications for persons 
who conduct miner training, and if so, what those qualifications should 
be. Many commenters offered their views on this issue.
    A number of commenters stated that the rule should impose no 
minimum qualifications for trainers. Some indicated that many 
supervisors and other employees at mining operations possess the 
experience and skills necessary to train others effectively, and that 
you should have broad latitude to use on-site trainers for some, or 
all, of your training needs. Other commenters believed that it is 
impossible to regulate the quality of instruction with minimum criteria 
such as academic training, mining experience, years of training 
experience, etc., and that an instructor certification program would 
not guarantee the quality of instruction. One commenter was concerned 
that restricting all training to a limited pool of certified 
instructors would deprive you of the flexibility needed to develop 
training plans responsive to the unique circumstances of each mining 
operation. Another commenter stated that if training instructors are 
required to be certified and to complete some type of formal training, 
you could have great difficulty in finding people who can actually 
deliver training in the necessary subject areas.
    On the other hand, several commenters recommended that the approach 
taken in part 48, which requires our approval of instructors, be used 
as a guideline for addressing instructor qualifications under part 46. 
Under part 48, instructors may be approved in several ways. For 
example, instructors may take an instructor training course and 
complete a program of instruction approved by us in the subject to be 
taught; instructors may also obtain approval to provide training based 
on written evidence of their qualifications and teaching experience.
    In contrast, several commenters stated that the instructor approval 
process under part 48 has had inconsistent results, at best. Another 
commenter suggested that instructors should be certified by a 
recognized professional organization in health and safety. Still others 
recommended that if we do not require instructors to be approved, the 
rule should require prospective trainers to go through a training 
course so that they will know how to present training materials 
correctly and effectively. Several commenters believed that instructors 
should also be able to evaluate the effectiveness of the training they 
are giving.
    The proposal adopts the recommendations of many commenters that the 
rule not require a formal program for the approval or certification of 
instructors, or establish rigid minimum qualifications for instructors. 
We are persuaded at this stage that a formal instructor approval 
program would provide no real guarantee that training will be 
effective, and that the benefits realized from a formal program would 
not justify the additional administrative burden. We are also persuaded 
by commenters who stated that there are many experienced and 
knowledgeable people currently working in the industry who can provide 
effective training in a wide variety of subject areas.
    Contrary to the recommendations of several commenters, we have not 
included a proposed requirement that trainers receive instruction in 
how to provide training before they serve as instructors. Instead, we 
would expect you to assess how well a person can communicate in 
determining whether he or she is capable of providing training for your 
miners. A person with extensive knowledge in a particular subject area 
may not be a good choice as an instructor if he or she is unable to 
convey the information to miners clearly and effectively.
    The proposal would require that training be conducted by a 
``competent person'' designated by you. The proposal would not 
establish minimum academic or professional qualifications for these 
persons. Instead, these persons would be required to have sufficient 
ability, knowledge, training, or experience to enable them to provide 
training to miners. They must also be able to evaluate in some fashion 
whether the training has been effective. The proposal does not specify 
how such an evaluation must be conducted, and we anticipate that the 
method of evaluation will depend to a large extent on the type of 
training being given. For example, a written test might be appropriate 
in a traditional classroom setting, while a miner receiving new task 
training may be asked to demonstrate to the trainer that he or she can 
perform the task safely. The proposed rule would allow a significant 
amount of discretion in this determination. In addition, we will be 
available to provide assistance to you in determining the appropriate 
training for your operation.
    We are interested in comments on the approach taken in the proposal 
for training instructors, particularly on our preliminary decision on 
the merits of a formal instructor approval or certification program. 
For example, one commenter recommended that we should focus our 
attention on the evaluation of instructors who have not taken a course 
on presentation skills, also known as ``train-the-trainer'' courses. 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.

[[Page 18514]]

    Paragraph (b) provides that you may conduct your own training or 
may arrange for training to be conducted by federal or state agencies; 
associations of operators; miners' representatives; other operators; 
contractors, consultants, or manufacturers' representatives; private 
associations; educational institutions; or other competent training 
providers. This provision is similar to language in Sec. 48.24 and in 
the Coalition draft proposal and would make clear that you may choose 
from a variety of training providers in satisfying your training 
responsibilities under part 46. We recognize that a wide variety of 
effective miner training is available from many types of organizations 
across the country. Under the proposal, you would be free to arrange 
with outside training providers in satisfying your training 
obligations. We expect that many small operators and independent 
contractors, who may not have the resources for a formal in-house 
training program, will elect to arrange with outside organizations to 
provide some part of their training.
    Paragraph (c) would allow the acceptance of training required by 
OSHA or other federal and state agencies to satisfy the training 
requirements under part 46. Under the proposal, this training must be 
equivalent to what would be provided under part 46--that is, it must be 
safety and health training that is relevant to the mining environment.
    Acceptance of OSHA training was raised by a number of speakers at 
the public meetings. Several speakers indicated that many operations 
regulated by us, such as sand and gravel or crushed stone sites, are 
also associated with an OSHA-regulated facility, such as a construction 
site. Employees may be shared across several operations under the same 
management. One speaker pointed out that in many cases the equipment at 
these operations is interchangeable, the tasks are interchangeable, and 
the workers are interchangeable. These employees may perform the same 
duties at both sites and have been trained to work around the same 
types of hazards. These speakers strongly urged us to accept the safety 
and health training provided to comply with OSHA regulations to satisfy 
training requirements under part 46. Several commenters also 
recommended that we accept training that is provided to satisfy the 
requirements of other regulatory agencies, and this recommendation is 
reflected in the proposal. It should be noted that this training would 
need to be documented under Sec. 46.9 to be accepted, not only to 
establish the duration of the training but also the equivalency of the 
training. We are persuaded at this point that acceptance of this 
training is appropriate. However, we are interested in comments that 
both support or take issue with this determination. We are also 
interested in receiving comments on which federal and state agency 
training requirements may be used to satisfy the requirements of part 
46.
    Paragraphs (d) and (e) are intended to provide you with flexibility 
in satisfying your training obligations. Under paragraph (d), training 
under part 46 could consist of classroom instruction, instruction at 
the mine site, other innovative training methods (such as computer-
based training), alternative training technologies, or any combination 
thereof. The recognizes that a combination of different training 
methods can be extremely effective, and makes clear that we encourage 
you to be creative in complying with your training responsibilities.
    Several commenters recommended that the rule allow for training at 
the mine site, particularly initial training for new miners. Another 
commenter believed that training under the rule should not be limited 
to traditional classroom instruction, but that a mix of different 
approaches should be permitted. A number of commenters strongly 
recommended that the rule be sufficiently flexible to accommodate 
future technology and training advances. The proposal is responsive to 
these recommendations.
    We intend that the proposed rule allow new training technologies 
developed in the future to be used to comply with part 46. We 
anticipate that many of you will use a combination of different 
approaches to provide training, including innovative technologies. On 
the other hand, the classroom may serve as the most appropriate forum 
for training on particular subjects.
    Paragraph (e) would allow employee safety meetings, including 
informal safety and health talks and instruction, to be credited toward 
either new miner training, newly-hired experienced miner training, or 
annual refresher training requirements, provided that you document the 
training consistent with proposed Sec. 46.9. We requested comment in 
the notice of meeting published in the Federal Register on whether 
informal instruction lasting less than 30 minutes should be allowed to 
satisfy training requirements under the rule. Part 48 currently 
requires a training session to last at least 30 minutes, and several 
commenters urged the inclusion in part 46 of this 30-minute 
restriction. One commenter believed that a 15-minute minimum was 
appropriate. Other commenters stated that some of the best training 
occurs in sessions of less than 15 minutes, and that the rule should 
not impose an arbitrary restriction on the length of training sessions. 
A number of commenters indicated that short training sessions provided 
throughout the year can be very effective.
    We are persuaded by those commenters who advocate flexibility in 
the length of training sessions, and this determination is reflected in 
the proposal. However, we are interested in any rationale or evidence 
from commenters that would support imposing a minimum duration on 
training sessions.
Section 46.5  New Miner Training
    This section includes minimum requirements for training new miners 
when they begin work at a mine. This section lists subject areas that 
training must cover, addresses which of those subjects must be taught 
before new miners begin their work duties at the mine, and specifies 
the minimum number of hours of instruction required by the Act for new 
miner training.
    Section 115(a)(2) of the Mine Act requires mine operators to 
provide at least 24 hours of training to inexperienced surface miners. 
This training must include instruction on specific topics.
    The Federal Register notice announcing the public meetings 
solicited comment on several issues related to new miner training. 
Specifically, comments were requested on--

    (1) The subjects that should be taught before a new miner begins 
assigned duties;
    (2) Whether training should be given all at once or over time, 
or whether you should make this determination; and
    (3) The advantages and disadvantages of spreading training over 
an extended period.

    While section 115 does not expressly require new miners to be 
trained before they begin work, part 48 currently requires that the 
full 24 hours of new miner training be given before miners are assigned 
work at the mine, unless specifically permitted to do otherwise by the 
District Manager. Even with District Manager approval, however, 
operators under part 48 must provide a minimum of eight hours of 
training to new miners before work duties begin.
    Many speakers at the public meetings and many of those providing 
written comments addressed how much of the 24 hours of new miner 
training should be given before a miner is allowed to begin work. One 
commenter stated that all of the subjects listed in section 115

[[Page 18515]]

of the Mine Act should be taught before a new miner is assigned work, 
even if the work is done under close supervision. However, the majority 
of commenters indicated that they believe it would be appropriate to 
require at least eight hours of training before the miner begins work, 
which is also the minimum number of hours specified under the 
Coalition's proposal. Several commenters advocated a six-to eight-hour 
training minimum before a miner begins work, and one commenter took the 
approach that initial training could include two hours of instruction 
on hazard recognition, personal protective equipment, and the company's 
safety policy, followed by six hours of work closely supervised by an 
experienced miner. However, a number of commenters, including those who 
indicated approval of a minimum initial training requirement, also said 
that setting a minimum number of hours for training may be excessive 
for many mines. According to many commenters, effective initial 
training could be completed in less than a mandated minimum depending 
on the size of and conditions at the mine, tasks to be performed, and 
experience of the miner. The commenters claimed that the key issue is 
the quality and relevance of training and not the number of hours spent 
providing initial training for a new miner.
    In response to commenters and the Coalition's proposal, we 
considered adopting an eight-hour minimum initial training requirement 
in the proposal and also gave serious consideration to several other 
approaches. These alternatives included a requirement that all 24 hours 
of training be completed prior to the miner commencing job duties, or 
that a minimum period of initial training be completed, such as two or 
four hours, before the miner begins work. We also considered a two-hour 
minimum period of initial training, which could be reduced, with our 
approval, based on the size of the operation, complexity of the mine 
site, and experience of the new hire. We also considered a requirement 
that you provide instruction to the miner on specific topics before 
beginning work, in lieu of a minimum time requirement for initial 
training.
    We have made a preliminary determination that requiring a minimum 
number of hours to be spent on training before a miner begins work may 
be unduly burdensome and unnecessary for many mines, particularly small 
mines with few employees and limited equipment. Commenters indicated 
that at many small operations, a thorough workplace orientation on the 
mine and its hazards would not even require two hours. These commenters 
recommended flexibility be given to you in determining the amount of 
initial training that should be provided. We believe you are in the 
best position to determine the amount of training that is needed for 
new miners, depending on your particular operation.
    We have determined that it is appropriate to require that new 
miners be given instruction on certain subject areas prior to beginning 
work, rather than to establish a minimum number of hours that must be 
devoted to this training. The proposal would require training on four 
specific topics for each new miner before he or she begins work at the 
mine, with the balance of the 24 hours of training to be provided 
within 60 days. By not requiring a minimum number of hours of initial 
training for new miners, the proposal would provide flexibility to you 
to tailor your training plans to focus on the unique needs of your 
operations and workforce and to provide the most effective and relevant 
training for the new miners at your mines. At the same time, by 
requiring that specific subject areas be covered before new miners 
begin 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, while 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 
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.
    Many speakers and commenters addressed how long the rule should 
allow the balance of the 24-hour new miner training to be given. The 
draft Coalition proposal would require that new miner training be 
completed within 60 working days of the miner reporting to work at the 
mine site. Most commenters favored a 60-day deadline for completion of 
new miner training, but did not indicate whether the deadline should be 
60 working days or 60 calendar days. One commenter expressed a 
preference for spreading out the remaining training over a 90-day 
period.
    Some commenters pointed out that new miners can be overwhelmed with 
too much information when they first come to work at a mine. These 
commenters were opposed to providing training all at once. A few 
commenters maintained that providing new miner training over an 
extended period of time, with practical work experience between 
training periods, improves and encourages miners' retention of 
important training material.
    Citing the rapid turnover of workers in the industry, other 
commenters who favored training over an extended period of time were 
concerned that operators would not recoup the substantial up-front 
investment incurred for training if it were required to be given all at 
once. This was offered as one reason to allow training to be given over 
a longer period, up to 90 days or even six months; additionally, some 
commenters maintained that it would be less burdensome in the long run 
since they would not have to provide the balance of training to miners 
whose employment at the mine lasted less than three months. Another 
commenter believed that a six-month period would also be less 
disruptive to the mining process since it would give you more 
flexibility to schedule training during periods when operations would 
be slowed or idle.
    In contrast, there were a few commenters who pointed out several 
disadvantages of spreading new miner training over a period of time. 
The drawbacks mentioned were that the new miner may not receive a 
timely general overview of all potential safety and health hazards, 
which could result in a greater risk of injury. These commenters also 
stated that training over a longer period of time could increase 
recordkeeping and paperwork burdens and create scheduling problems.
    After considering the comments received, we believe that there are 
advantages to training new miners over an extended period of time, 
including better retention of information by miners, and flexibility in 
providing the training. We are sensitive to the economic hardships that 
many smaller operators may experience due to their inability to hire or 
spare employees for training purposes. In addition, training

[[Page 18516]]

may be more meaningful after a worker accrues some work experience at 
the mine.
    On the other hand, inexperienced or untrained miners should not be 
permitted to work for long periods without being fully trained. 
Therefore, we are proposing in paragraph (d) that you must provide the 
balance of the 24 hours of new miner training within 60 days after the 
new miner begins work at the mine. Under the proposal, the 60 days 
would be calendar days, not working days as recommended by the 
Coalition. We believe that a deadline measured in working days would be 
impractical, particularly given the intermittent and seasonal work 
schedules of many operations. It would not only present an 
administrative burden to you, both for paperwork and for class 
scheduling, but would also make enforcement extremely difficult. 
However, we solicit comment on the 60-day deadline for the completion 
of new miner training and are interested in suggestions for alternate 
approaches.
    Section 115(a)(2) of the Act requires new miner instruction on the 
following topics:

    * * * statutory rights of miners and their representatives under 
the Act, use of the self-rescue and respiratory devices where 
appropriate, hazard recognition, emergency procedures, electrical 
hazards, first aid, walk around training, and the health and safety 
aspects of the task to which the miner will be assigned.

    A number of commenters and speakers at the public meetings 
addressed the subjects that should be taught to new miners, without 
indicating whether the courses should be taught before or after a new 
miner begins work. The comments varied greatly. One commenter advocated 
the elimination of required training subjects altogether and urged the 
use of task training in lieu of new miner training. Several commenters 
approved of providing training on the eight general subject areas 
listed in section 115(a)(2) of the Act but did not endorse describing 
the specific contents of courses to be taught, as is presently done in 
part 48. Other commenters favored new miner training subjects as they 
are presented in part 48, but believed that first aid training, in 
particular, needs to be addressed in a different forum, citing the 
significant amount of instruction needed to adequately cover the topic. 
One commenter questioned the appropriateness of including training on 
self-rescue devices for surface miners.
    Several commenters recommended that the final rule list as required 
topics the more general subjects found in section 115, rather than the 
more detailed approach taken in existing part 48. They maintained that 
a longer list of subjects with detailed course content would limit your 
ability to provide meaningful training at the varied operations at 
mines affected by the rider. Others suggested that criteria or 
guidelines be provided to you to assist you in selecting new miner 
training topics and in determining the time that should be devoted to 
specific subjects. Suggested criteria included the size of the mine, 
the history of accidents, injuries, and fatalities at the mine, 
national trends in accidents and fatalities, and the experience and 
knowledge of individual miners.
    A number of commenters addressed the subjects that should be taught 
before a new miner begins assigned work duties. The majority of 
commenters and speakers agreed that some general orientation as well as 
site- and task-specific training must take place before a miner begins 
work at the mine. At the same time, many commenters maintained that you 
need flexibility to tailor the training to the specific safety and 
health needs of your miners and the unique conditions at your mines. 
The Coalition's draft proposal would require eight hours of instruction 
in the following subjects before a new miner could begin work: 
walkaround training; hazard recognition; and the health and safety 
aspects of tasks to which the new miner will be assigned. Commenters 
most frequently mentioned the courses listed above. In addition, some 
commenters recommended that training on escapeway and emergency 
procedures be included in pre-work training.
    In response to these comments, proposed paragraph (b) would require 
that you train new miners in four areas before they begin work--

    (1) An introduction to the work environment, including a visit 
and tour of the mine, or portions of the mine that are 
representative of the entire mine. The method of mining or operation 
utilized must be observed and explained;
    (2) Instruction on the recognition and avoidance of hazards, 
including electrical hazards, at the mine;
    (3) A review of the escape and emergency evacuation procedures 
in effect at the mine and instruction on the firewarning signals and 
firefighting procedures; and
    (4) Instruction on the health and safety aspects of the tasks to 
be assigned, including the safe work procedures of such tasks, and 
the mandatory health and safety standards pertinent to such tasks.

    Instruction of new miners in these four areas is intended to ensure 
that miners are sufficiently familiar with the hazards at the mine, 
that they can avoid exposing themselves and others to unnecessary risks 
and can perform their job assignments safely, and that they are able to 
respond to mine emergencies. We are requesting comment on whether the 
subject areas required are appropriate, especially in light of the fact 
that the proposal does not establish a minimum number of hours for pre-
work training.
    Paragraph (c) of the proposal would allow new miners to practice 
under the close supervision of a competent person to satisfy the 
requirement for training on the health and safety aspects of an 
assigned task. This provision is consistent with our current policy 
under part 48, and is also included in the Coalition's draft proposal. 
Our existing policy under part 48 allows a miner to perform an actual 
task assignment at the mine site as long as there is continuous 
supervision by an approved instructor, and training, not production, is 
the primary goal. ``Close supervision'' would mean that the competent 
person is in the immediate vicinity of the miner and is focusing his or 
her complete attention on the actions of the miner being trained. A 
miner would not be considered under ``close supervision'' if the 
competent person is occupied with any other task or is not in close 
proximity to the miner. Although the proposal would not require 
training instructors to be approved by us, we believe that practice of 
a task by a new miner under the close, individualized, supervision of a 
``competent person,'' as that term is defined in proposed Sec. 46.2, 
can be an effective training method and can be accomplished safely. We 
gave consideration to allowing practice to be supervised by an 
experienced miner rather than a competent person, but have determined 
that the person supervising new miners and instructing them on the 
health and safety aspects of their jobs must be qualified in the 
particular subject matter, possessing the skills to teach that subject 
and to evaluate whether the recipient of the instruction has understood 
it. We solicit comments on whether it is reasonable to allow a new 
miner to practice a task under the supervision of a ``competent 
person'' to satisfy this pre-work training requirement.
    Similarly, under paragraph (a), until the full 24 hours of new 
miner training is received, a new miner must work under the close 
supervision of an experienced miner. This is modeled after a similar 
provision in Sec. 48.25(a), and is intended to ensure that the health 
and safety of a new untrained miner are protected until new miner 
training is completed. We are interested in comments on whether this 
provision is

[[Page 18517]]

realistic, workable, and in the best interests of the miner.
    Proposed paragraph (d) lists the remaining subject areas that must 
be covered in new miner training within 60 days after the miner begins 
work, and is derived from section 115 of the Mine Act and 
recommendations from commenters and the Coalition's draft proposal. 
These subjects include--

    (1) Instruction on the statutory rights of miners and their 
representatives under the Act;
    (2) A review and description of the line of authority of 
supervisors and miners' representatives and the responsibilities of 
such supervisors and miners' representatives;
    (3) An introduction to the mine's rules and procedures for 
reporting hazards;
    (4) Instruction and demonstration on the use, care, and 
maintenance of self-rescue and respiratory devices, if used at the 
mine; and
    (5) A review of first aid methods.

    The proposed rule provides some specification of the content of the 
training on each subject area, beyond what is included in the Mine Act. 
This detail is provided in the proposal to assist you and miners in 
developing training plans. We are interested in comments on whether the 
courses being proposed are sufficient, whether including specification 
of the content of subject areas is helpful, or whether it decreases 
your flexibility in developing training materials that best meet your 
needs.
    We would note that the requirement for first-aid instruction under 
paragraph (d) would not require you to hire an approved first-aid 
instructor or obtain first-aid teaching equipment to train new miners. 
We understand that some miners and designated supervisors will receive 
first-aid training under the requirements of 30 CFR parts 56, 57, 75, 
and 77, and that an in-depth first-aid course for new miners may be 
impracticable in many cases. However, first-aid instruction should 
include a review of basic first-aid measures, such as contacting 
emergency medical personnel, application of bandages, or the 
circumstances where injured persons should not be moved.
    A few commenters were concerned that miners who had completed new 
miner training but did not have sufficient work experience for status 
as an experienced miner would be required to repeat new miner training. 
To minimize the likelihood that miners would have to repeat new miner 
training unnecessarily, proposed paragraphs (e) and (f) would make 
certain allowances for new miners who have not attained experienced 
miner status for training purposes but who have completed new miner 
training under part 46 or part 48. Under paragraph (e), miners who have 
completed new miner training within the previous 36 months but who do 
not have the 12 months of experience for experienced miner status would 
not have to repeat new miner training if they begin work at a new mine. 
This is similar to a recently revised provision in Sec. 48.25(d). We 
have determined that it would be illogical and unnecessary to require 
these miners to repeat 24 hours of new miner training each time they 
begin work at a new mine covered by part 46, until they have accrued 
the requisite 12 months of experience. However, miners would be 
required to receive pre-work training under paragraph (b) on the same 
four subjects that are required for both new miners and newly-hired 
experienced miners, to ensure that they are familiar with the mine's 
operations and practices before starting work.
    We also recognize that, although a miner may not have completed new 
miner training under part 46 or Sec. 48.25, he or she may have 
completed training in particular subject areas as an underground miner 
under Sec. 48.5, or as a surface miner under Sec. 48.25. In some cases, 
the subject areas covered may be relevant to courses required for new 
miners under part 46. Paragraph (f) would allow this training to be 
credited toward new miner training. For instance, a miner may have 
received new miner instruction at an underground mine on the statutory 
rights of miners and their representatives; the use, care, and 
maintenance of self-rescuers or respiratory devices; or on first aid 
methods. In those cases, under proposed paragraph (f), it would be 
acceptable to give credit for relevant training courses already taken 
by the miner, provided that the courses were completed within the 
previous 36-month period.
    Although the proposal would allow credit for training in any 
subject area, we request comment on whether credit for training given 
at other mines should be limited to training in subject areas listed 
under proposed paragraph (d), and not be given for subject areas listed 
under paragraph (b), which have a very mine-specific orientation. For 
example, it may be inadvisable to allow credit for hazard recognition 
training or a review of the escape and emergency procedures given at 
another mine, because this training may have very limited value or 
application at the mine. On the other hand, a miner returning to the 
same mine could be given credit for all training completed at that mine 
within the previous 36-month period.
    We encourage commenters to address whether the final rule should 
allow such crediting and how it should be handled. Our intention in 
paragraphs (e) and (f) of Sec. 46.5 is to--

    (1) Be practical;
    (2) Reduce the compliance burden and expense of redundant 
training for you; and
    (3) Still ensure that miners receive effective training.
Section 46.6  Newly-Hired Experienced Miner Training
    This section of the proposed rule would address training 
requirements for newly-hired ``experienced miners,'' as that term is 
defined in Sec. 46.2. This section lists the subject areas that must be 
addressed in training newly-hired experienced miners, before they begin 
work at the mine, and requires that the miners receive annual refresher 
training within a 90-day period after they begin work. This section 
also includes separate training requirements for experienced miners who 
are returning to the same mine after an absence of 12 months or less, 
and for experienced miners who are employees of independent contractors 
and who are on mine property for short durations.
    Section 115 of the Mine Act does not expressly direct the Secretary 
to promulgate training requirements for newly-hired experienced miners. 
However, experienced miners should be thoroughly familiar with the 
particular environment and hazards present at their mine before they 
start work. The regulations in part 48 provide separate training 
requirements for newly-hired experienced miners.
    The draft proposal of the Coalition would require newly-hired 
experienced miners to receive only site-specific hazard recognition 
training before being assigned work duties, and annual refresher 
training within 90 days of employment. The Coalition draft provides 
that if a miner had received refresher training ``commensurate with the 
hazards of the new job from a previous employer within the last year,'' 
the miner would be required to receive hazard recognition training.
    Only a few commenters addressed newly-hired experienced miner 
training. One commenter stated that experienced miners need the same 
level of training as new miners so that poor safety habits can be 
corrected. One commenter maintained that before work begins, a newly-
hired experienced miner should receive a safety orientation that 
addresses both task- and site-specific subjects. Another commenter 
maintained that appropriate task training should be provided before the 
newly-hired experienced miner begins

[[Page 18518]]

work, and supported the requirement that refresher training be given to 
newly-hired experienced miners within 30 days of employment if they are 
not current with their refresher training. Several commenters addressed 
situations where an experienced miner returns to mining after an 
absence. One commenter stated that such a miner must be made aware of 
improvements in the trade since the miner's absence. Another commenter, 
referring to training requirements for newly-hired experienced miners 
in part 48 and to an earlier draft proposal from the Coalition, 
questioned the appropriateness of requiring only eight hours of 
training for a person returning to mining work after an absence of five 
years or more.
    Paragraph (a) would require you to train newly-hired experienced 
miners in four subject areas before they begin work. These required 
subjects would include--

    (1) An introduction to the work environment, including a visit 
and tour of the mine, or portions of the mine that are 
representative of the entire mine. The method of mining or operation 
utilized must be observed and explained;
    (2) The recognition and avoidance of hazards, including 
electrical hazards, at the mine;
    (3) The escape and emergency evacuation plans in effect at the 
mine and instruction on the firewarning signals and firefighting 
procedures; and
    (4) The health and safety aspects of the tasks to be assigned, 
including the safe work procedures of such tasks, and the mandatory 
health and safety standards pertinent to such tasks.

    The requirements of proposed paragraph (a) are identical to the 
requirements proposed in Sec. 46.5(b) for training for new miners 
before they begin work and would include both task- and site-specific 
instruction. For the same reasons discussed in the preamble for 
Sec. 46.5, the proposal specifies subjects and course materials that 
are intended to ensure that a newly-hired miner is familiar with the 
mine environment, operations, equipment, potential hazards, and 
emergency procedures. These requirements are also intended to ensure 
that newly-hired miners have sufficient instruction to perform work 
assignments safely. We are interested in whether the subject areas that 
would be required to be addressed for newly-hired experienced miners 
before they begin work are appropriate or whether different subject 
areas would be more relevant for experienced miners. Commenters should 
note that proposed Sec. 46.6 would not specifically provide, as do the 
requirements for new miner training, that a newly-hired experienced 
miner could perform actual task assignments as ``practice'' to fulfill 
the requirement for training on the health and safety aspects of an 
assigned task. However, we are interested in whether this issue should 
be addressed in the final rule.
    Paragraph (b) directs you to provide annual refresher training to 
newly-hired experienced miners within 90 days after their employment. 
The proposal specifies that, at a minimum, the refresher training must 
include--

    (1) Instruction on the statutory rights of miners and their 
representatives under the Act;
    (2) A review and description of the line of authority of 
supervisors and miners' representatives and the responsibilities of 
such supervisors and miners' representatives;
    (3) An introduction to your rules and procedures for reporting 
hazards; and
    (4) Instruction and demonstration on the use, care, and maintenance 
of self-rescue and respiratory devices, if used at the mine.

The requirements of this paragraph are identical to those proposed for 
new miners under Sec. 46.5(d), except that a review of first aid 
methods would not be required for experienced miners. The proposal 
would not require first aid instruction for newly-hired experienced 
miners because it would be covered in new miner training and may be 
reviewed during annual refresher training. This would not prevent you 
from including first aid training for newly-hired experienced miners if 
you choose. Again, we request comments on the suitability of the listed 
subjects and whether the detailed description of the subject areas 
would limit your flexibility in tailoring course materials to meet the 
needs of newly-hired experienced miners. We are also interested in 
whether the 90-day deadline to provide annual refresher training on the 
required subjects is reasonable. We request that commenters explain the 
reasoning behind their recommendations.
    The proposal would not require a minimum number of hours for newly-
hired experienced miner training, in recognition of the wide range of 
experience and skill among experienced miners. The approach taken in 
the proposal is intended to allow you to determine the amount of 
training that is appropriate for each newly-hired experienced miner, 
based on your assessment of the miner's needs. The proposal would 
require all newly-hired experienced miners to receive at least some 
training in all of the required subject areas. However, a miner 
transferring from one mine to another where the operations and 
equipment in use are very similar may not need as much training in some 
areas as another experienced miner whose previous experience has been 
less relevant. We are interested in whether commenters advocate setting 
a minimum number of hours for newly-hired experienced miner training, 
or support training of a specified duration based on discrete criteria 
such as mine size, mining methods, type of operations or equipment, 
etc.
    Paragraph (c) of proposed Sec. 46.6 would address training for a 
newly-hired experienced miner returning to the same mine after an 
absence of 12 months or less. This provision has been adopted from 
recently revised provisions in Sec. 48.26. Under this paragraph, you 
would not be required to provide such a miner with the training 
required by paragraphs (a) and (b); instead, you would simply be 
required to inform the miner, before the miner begins work, of changes 
at the mine that occurred during the miner's absence that could 
endanger his or her safety or health. You would also be required to 
provide the miner with any annual refresher training that the miner may 
have missed during his or her absence, within 90 days after the miner 
starts work.
    Under paragraph (d), employees of independent contractors who are 
``miners'' under the proposed definition and who work at the mine on a 
short-term basis would be required to receive either newly-hired 
experienced miner training under paragraphs (a) or (b) or site-specific 
hazard training under Sec. 46.11. This is based on a similar provision 
in the definition of ``miner'' in existing Sec. 48.22(a)(1). The 
language of the proposed rule itself reflects our assumption that this 
provision would be applicable primarily to drillers and blasters who, 
because of the nature of their work, are at a mine for a short period 
of time before moving on to another job at another mine. We do not 
believe that it makes practical sense to require miners who regularly 
move from one mine to another to be treated the same as newly-hired 
miners who remain at one mine site. Therefore, the proposal would not 
require them to receive newly-hired experienced miner training whenever 
they begin work at a new mine. However, we are interested in comments 
on whether these are appropriate exceptions from the newly-hired 
experienced miner training requirements.
Section 46.7  New Task Training
    Section 115(a)(4) of the Mine Act provides that:

    * * * any miner who is reassigned to a new task in which he has 
had no previous

[[Page 18519]]

work experience shall receive training in accordance with a training 
plan approved by the Secretary * * * in the safety and health 
aspects specific to that task prior to performing that task.

    This section of the proposed rule would implement this statutory 
provision by requiring you to provide miners with training for new 
tasks and for regularly assigned tasks that have changed, before the 
miners perform the tasks.
    Commenters strongly supported a requirement for task training, 
stating that employees need to be aware of the hazards and the risks 
associated with the jobs or tasks that they are asked to perform and be 
familiar with the systems, tools, equipment, and procedures required to 
control these hazards. The proposed task training requirements are 
intended to reduce the likelihood of accidents resulting from lack of 
knowledge about the elements and the hazards of the task. This training 
should ensure that miners receive necessary information before 
performing the tasks that they are assigned, so that they can avoid 
endangering themselves or other miners at the mine site.
    Some commenters recommended that new task training requirements be 
patterned after the requirements for task training in part 48. Under 
part 48, for example, a program for new task training must include 
instruction, in an on-the-job environment, in the health and safety 
aspects and safe operating procedures of the task; supervised practice 
during nonproduction times is also required.
    Paragraph (a) of proposed Sec. 46.7 provides that, before a miner 
performs a task for which he or she has no previous experience, you 
must train the miner in the safety and health aspects and safe work 
procedures specific to that task. Additionally, if changes have 
occurred in a miner's regularly assigned task, you must provide the 
miner with training that addresses the changes.
    Unlike part 48, the proposal does not include detailed requirements 
for task training. This is intended to allow you to design task 
training programs that are suitable for your workforce and your 
operation. We expect that effective new task training will include, at 
a minimum, instruction in the elements of the task, including hands-on 
training, and an explanation of the potential health or safety hazards 
associated with the task and ways of minimizing or avoiding exposure to 
these hazards. However, we are interested in comments on whether the 
final rule should include more detail and guidance for you on the 
elements of an effective new task training program, and what areas 
should be addressed. We also solicit comments on whether new task 
training requirements under the final rule should be modeled after the 
requirements in part 48, as recommended by some commenters.
    Several commenters stated that very effective and safe training in 
a new task can include the miner practicing the task while under the 
close supervision of a competent person, who instructs the individual 
in how to perform the task in a safe manner. We believe that supervised 
practice can allow the miner to gain experience at the new task and to 
learn how to avoid the hazards presented by the performance of the 
task. Consistent with this determination, paragraph (b) specifically 
provides that practice under the close supervision of a competent 
person may be used to satisfy new task training requirements. ``Close 
supervision,'' as discussed in the preamble for new miner training 
under proposed Sec. 46.5, would mean that the competent person is in 
the immediate vicinity of the miner and is focusing his or her complete 
attention on the actions of the miner being trained. A miner would not 
be considered under ``close supervision'' if the competent person is 
occupied with any other task or is not in close proximity to the miner.
    We intend that task training would not be required for miners who 
have performed the task before and who are able to safely perform the 
task. However, you must first determine that task training is not 
necessary, typically by having the miner demonstrate that he or she is 
able to perform the task safely.
    Several commenters recommended that the rule allow task training to 
be credited toward new miner training requirements. We recognize that 
new task training will be a fundamental and essential part of the 
training for most new miners, who must be trained in the health and 
safety aspects of the tasks they will be assigned. Allowing task 
training to be used to satisfy new miner training requirements would be 
consistent with this requirement. Paragraph (c) would therefore 
specifically provide that new task training may be used to satisfy new 
miner training requirements, as appropriate. Additionally, although 
speakers at the public meetings did not specifically raise the issue, 
we are interested in whether commenters support allowing new task 
training to satisfy some portion of annual refresher training 
requirements.
Section 46.8  Annual Refresher Training
    Section 115(a)(3) of the Act requires all miners to receive at 
least eight hours of refresher training no less frequently than once 
every 12 months, but does not require that specific subjects be covered 
as part of this training. In the Federal Register notice announcing the 
public meetings, we requested comment on whether specific subject areas 
should be covered during annual refresher training, and if so, what 
subjects should be included.
    Commenters strongly supported the concept of annual refresher 
training. However, most commenters believed that the subjects covered 
in refresher training should not be fixed, but instead should be 
tailored to the safety needs of the miners at the particular operation. 
Many commenters indicated that training topics should vary from year to 
year.
    Several commenters stated that although general guidelines 
addressing possible training topics was a good idea, the final rule 
should allow flexibility in choosing topics. One commenter stated that 
refresher training should cover subject areas relevant to the biggest 
safety problems at the mine over the preceding year. Another commenter 
indicated that his operation took that approach and analyzed accidents 
that occurred at the mine over the past year, basing its training 
program on that analysis. One commenter stated that the idea that 
annual refresher training is just boring, routine, and repetitious of 
the same topics every year is dangerous, and that lifesaving critical 
skills that are non- routine need to be refreshed because people 
forget.
    We are persuaded by commenters' recommendations that you have 
flexibility in selecting topics for refresher training and have made a 
preliminary determination that refresher training that addresses topics 
relevant to the mine's methods of operation, equipment, accident and 
illness history, etc., can be extremely effective. The proposal 
reflects this determination.
    Paragraphs (a) and (b) of proposed Sec. 46.8 provide that you must 
provide each miner with no less than eight hours of refresher training 
once every 12 months. The refresher training must include, at a 
minimum, instruction on changes at the mine that could adversely affect 
the miner's health or safety. We expect that these changes would 
include such things as a modification in mine traffic patterns, new or 
retrofitted equipment, a new blasting schedule, etc.

[[Page 18520]]

    Paragraph (b) also includes a list of topics that may be covered as 
part of the refresher training, but none of these topics would be 
mandatory. The list of topics has been taken from part 48, and 
includes, among others, transportation controls and communication 
systems; ground control; water hazards, pits, and spoil banks; 
illumination and night work; and explosives. We expect that you will 
carefully select the areas that will be covered in the refresher 
training at your mine, to ensure that your miners will receive 
practical and useful instruction designed to effectively address the 
safety and health conditions at your mine. However, we are interested 
in comments on whether the final rule should include more detailed 
requirements or guidance for refresher training programs. We are 
specifically interested in whether the final rule should require 
instruction on particular topics, similar to part 48, and if so, which 
subjects should be included.
    Some commenters recommended that the 12-month interval for training 
should be calculated based on the months that a miner actually works as 
a miner rather than on 12 calendar months. These commenters reasoned 
that many miners only work at the mine site two or three months out of 
the year, and that these miners should not have to receive the same 
amount of training as miners who are continuously employed at a mine. 
The proposal does not adopt this suggestion. The rationale for a 
refresher training requirement is that the passage of time results in 
the loss of important information. Congress determined that miners 
should be retrained at a specified interval--no less frequently than 
every 12 months'and there is nothing in the Act's legislative history 
that suggests that Congress intended that refresher training be given 
every 12 working months rather than calendar months. In extreme cases, 
this interpretation might mean that some miners would receive refresher 
training every two or three years, rather than once every year as 
provided in the Act.
Section 46.9  Records of Training
    This section of the proposal includes requirements for you to 
record and certify that miners have received health and safety training 
under this part.
    Section 115(c) of the Mine Act provides that, upon completion of 
each training program, each operator shall certify, on a form approved 
by the Secretary, that the miner has received the specified training in 
each subject area of the approved health and safety training plan. The 
Mine Act also provides that a certificate for each miner shall be 
maintained by the operator and shall be available for inspection at the 
mine site; and that a miner is entitled to a copy of his or her 
training certificate when he or she leaves the operator's employ. 
Finally, the Mine Act requires that each training certificate indicate 
on its face in bold letters that false certification by an operator is 
punishable under section 110(a) and (f) of the Act.
    Recordkeeping was one of the issues identified by us in the Federal 
Register notice announcing the public meetings. We specifically asked 
for comments on whether records of training should be kept at the mine 
site, or whether you should be allowed to keep these records at other 
locations.
    A number of speakers at the public meetings addressed the issue of 
recordkeeping. Several speakers at the public meetings supported 
flexibility in all aspects of record maintenance, stating that you 
should be able to choose the record storage option that best suits your 
operation. One commenter stated that paperwork should be kept at a 
minimum, because if supervisors must spend too much time on paperwork, 
they will not have enough time to address mine hazards or ensure that 
miners are working safely. A number of commenters stated that you 
should have the option of keeping records at a location other than the 
mine site. These commenters believed that this would allow you to keep 
records in computer format or at a central location, and pointed out 
that the prevalence of electronic mail, computer networks, and fax 
machines would permit those of you with records maintained away from 
the mine site to provide copies of any record essentially 
instantaneously, such as to an MSHA inspector during a regular 
inspection.
    One commenter stated that centralized record management was likely 
to be more reliable and more cost-effective for many of you than a less 
automated system. Other commenters stated that at many mine sites the 
only place where records could be kept would be in a pickup truck, 
because there was nothing that resembled a mine office on the sites. 
Another commenter indicated that many of you have multiple mine sites, 
and that often the smaller sites are not well-suited for record 
maintenance, particularly if the records are computerized. Several 
commenters, however, believed that training certificates belonged at 
the mine site, and that such a requirement would not be particularly 
burdensome.
    The draft submitted by the Coalition would require that you certify 
that required training has been provided, provide certificates of 
training to miners, and maintain a copy of the training records during 
employment and for a period of 12 months following termination of 
employment. The Coalition draft also would provide that a miner who 
leaves your employ would be entitled, upon request, to a copy of his or 
her health and safety certificates.
    Proposed paragraph (a) would provide that, upon a miner's 
completion of each training program, you must record and certify that 
the miner has received the training. Consistent with the Mine Act 
requirement that certifications be kept on a form approved by the 
Secretary of Labor, the proposal would allow training certifications to 
be kept on MSHA Form 5000-23, which is the approved form used by 
operators under part 48 regulations to certify that training has been 
completed. However, this paragraph also would provide that you may use 
any other form that contains the minimum information listed in 
paragraph (b) in this section, and adopts the Mine Act provision that 
false certification by an operator that training was given is 
punishable under section 110(a) and (f) of the Act.
    The requirements of this paragraph are intended to allow those of 
you who may already be using MSHA Form 5000-23 for training 
certifications to continue to use this form under the new rule. 
However, in response to commenters requesting flexibility in complying 
with recordkeeping requirements, the proposal would allow the use of 
other forms that contain the minimum information specified in proposed 
paragraph (b). Under this paragraph a form would be considered approved 
by us if it contains the information listed in paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (b)(5). Information required would include--

    (1) The printed full name of the person who received the 
training;
    (2) The type of training that was received, the duration of the 
training, the date the training was received, and the name of the 
person who provided the training; and
    (3) The mine name, MSHA mine identification number, and the 
location where the training was given.

    We took this approach in response to comments that supported the 
elimination of some of the recordkeeping requirements under part 48. 
This approach is similar to the approach taken for approved training 
plans in proposed Sec. 46.3--formal approval of your recordkeeping 
format would not be required so long as the record includes the minimum 
information listed in the proposal. This is intended to provide you 
with the flexibility to tailor your method of recordkeeping to the 
particular

[[Page 18521]]

operation. We expect that in many cases the recordkeeping system will 
be computer-based; others may choose to keep certifications on MSHA 
Form 5000-23. Still others whose records are not computerized may 
choose to use another paper-based form.
    It should be noted that the information required under the proposal 
is less inclusive than the information called for on MSHA Form 5000-23. 
We believe that the information listed in the proposal would be 
sufficient to allow us to determine compliance with the training 
requirements. The information should also enable miners and their 
representatives to determine that necessary training has been provided 
for every miner, without placing an unnecessary recordkeeping burden on 
you. However, we specifically invite comment on whether information is 
needed beyond what is included in paragraph (b) to determine compliance 
with training requirements, and why that additional information is 
necessary. Similarly, we are also interested in whether any items of 
information listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) are unnecessary, 
and why. We also invite comments on whether the final rule should 
require the exclusive use of MSHA Form 5000-23 for training 
certifications or of a similar form that has been formally approved by 
us, and why commenters believe such an approach is advisable or 
necessary.
    Paragraph (b)(4) incorporates the requirement in section 115(c) of 
the Mine Act that each health and safety training certificate indicate 
on its face that false certification that training was conducted is 
punishable under Sec. 110(a) and (f) of the Mine Act. Section 110(a) of 
the Act provides that an operator who violates a mandatory standard or 
any other provision of the Act shall be assessed a civil penalty of up 
to $50,000. Section 110(f) of the Act provides that a person who makes 
a false statement, representation, or certification in records or other 
documents filed or maintained under the Act may be subject to criminal 
prosecution and fined up to $10,000 and imprisoned for up to 5 years. 
Paragraph (b)(4) has been included in the proposal to ensure that 
everyone who will be affected by the final rule or who will be 
responsible for compliance is aware of the civil and criminal penalties 
under the Mine Act for false training certification.
    Finally, paragraph (b)(5) requires that the training certificate 
also include a statement signed by the person responsible for training 
that ``I certify that the above training has been completed.'' The 
proposal would require the statement to be signed by the person who is 
identified in the training plan, under proposed Sec. 46.3(b)(2), as 
responsible for health and safety training at the mine. The proposal 
would not require miners who have received training to initial or sign 
the form; the proposal would also not require the signature of the 
person who actually conducts the training, unless that person is 
designated in the plan as responsible for health and safety training at 
the mine.
    This approach is taken in response to a number of commenters who 
supported reduced recordkeeping requirements. The proposal reflects our 
preliminary determination that a miner's initials or signature do not 
enhance the likelihood that training requirements will be fulfilled. 
However, we request comments on whether miners should be required to 
sign their training certificates. We also request comment on whether 
other persons besides the person responsible for training at the mine 
should be allowed to sign the certificates.
    Paragraph (c) adopts the requirement of section 115(c) of the Mine 
Act that operators give miners copies of their training certificates at 
the completion of each training program. We intend that miners receive 
copies of their certifications after they have completed the required 
24 hours of new miner training, eight hours of annual refresher 
training, newly-hired experienced miner training, or new task training. 
This would not prevent you from providing certificates to miners as 
partial installments of required training are completed, particularly 
when training is spread out over some period of time. We are interested 
in whether the requirements of this paragraph will ensure that miners 
will receive training certificates in a timely manner.
    Under paragraph (c), you would also be required to give a miner a 
copy of his or her training certificates when the miner leaves your 
employ, upon the miner's request. This adopts the provision in section 
115(c) of the Mine Act that miners are ``entitled'' to a copy of their 
certificates when they terminate their employment with an operator. The 
proposal interprets the statutory language to mean that a miner must be 
provided a copy if he or she requests it, but that you do not have to 
provide copies to miners who do not make such a request.
    We anticipate that miners who are leaving for another job in the 
mining industry or who intend to return to the mining industry at some 
point in the future will request copies of their training records. This 
will enable miners to document their training status under our 
regulations at other mining operations. However, we also anticipate 
that some miners will terminate their employment because they are 
retiring or with no expectation of returning to mining. Because of 
this, the proposal would not require that you provide these records to 
the miner automatically. We do not believe that this provision is 
unduly burdensome for the miner. However, we invite comment on whether 
you should be required to provide such records automatically upon the 
miner's termination of employment, or whether you should be required to 
offer such records to the miner.
    Paragraph (d) provides that you must make available at the mine 
site a copy of each miner's training certificate for inspection by us 
and for examination by miners and their representatives. This paragraph 
also states that if training certificates are not maintained at the 
mine site, you must have the capability to provide the certificates 
upon request by us, miners, or their representatives. This is the same 
approach taken for training plans under proposed Sec. 46.3. As 
explained in the preamble discussion for that section, no time is 
specified within which a copy of the records must be produced after a 
request is made by us or by miners. If you elect to keep training 
certificates away from the mine site, you must be able to produce 
copies of the training certificates within a reasonable period of time. 
In most cases, we would expect that the records could be produced in a 
relatively short period of time, particularly if they are to be faxed 
or e-mailed to the mine site. In those cases where a mine may not have 
a formal office, a longer period of time to produce the records may be 
allowed depending upon the individual circumstances.
    Comments are invited on whether the final rule should require that 
you maintain training certificates at the mine site. We also invite 
comment on the suggestion that the most recent training certificates be 
required to be kept at the mine site, allowing you to maintain other 
certificates at another location. We are also interested in whether 
commenters believe that the final rule should establish a deadline for 
you to produce records that are maintained away from the mine site, or 
whether the language in the proposal is adequate. One possible 
alternative would be require the records to be produced within a 
reasonable period of time, but in no case longer than one business day.
    Paragraph (e) would require that you maintain copies of training 
certificates

[[Page 18522]]

and training records for each currently employed miner during his or 
her employment, and for at least 12 months after a miner terminates 
employment. This provision is adopted from the draft of the Coalition. 
Under this provision, you would be required to retain a miner's 
training certificates while the miner continues to be employed by you. 
At the termination of a miner's employment, you would be required to 
maintain the miner's certificates for at least 12 months after that 
employment has ended. This approach would allow us to determine 
compliance with the training requirements in this part for both current 
and recently departed miners. However, we request comment on whether a 
shorter or longer period for record retention is appropriate, and 
whether different record retention periods make sense for current and 
former miners. For example, part 48 requires that training certificates 
of currently employed miners be retained for at least 2 years, or for 
60 days after termination of a miner's employment. Some commenters 
advocated adoption of the part 48 time frames.
Section 46.10  Compensation for Training
    This section of the proposal addresses when training under this 
part must be conducted and the compensation that miners must receive 
when they are undergoing training. This section adopts the provisions 
of section 115 of the Mine Act that address compensation for miners who 
attend required training.
    The issue of normal working hours and compensation for training was 
the subject of only one comment. A speaker at one of the public 
meetings stated that the rule should include a specific provision that 
adopted the statutory requirements in this area, to ensure that there 
was no confusion or uncertainty about the requirements of the Act.
    Section 115(b) of the Mine Act provides that health and safety 
training shall be provided during normal working hours and that miners 
shall be paid at their normal rate of compensation when they take such 
training. Section 115(b) also requires that if training is given at a 
location other than the normal place of work, miners shall be 
compensated for the additional costs incurred in attending such 
training.
    Paragraph (a) of proposed Sec. 46.10 incorporates this statutory 
requirement and would provide that health and safety training must be 
conducted during normal working hours. As discussed earlier in this 
preamble, the part 48 definition of ``normal working hours'' has been 
included in the proposal in Sec. 46.2 and provides that normal working 
hours means ``* * * a period of time during which a miner is otherwise 
scheduled to work.'' The definition also indicates that training may be 
conducted on the sixth or seventh working day provided that such work 
schedule has been established for a sufficient period of time to be 
accepted as the common practice. The proposed rule does not define the 
term ``sufficient period of time.'' However, as discussed under the 
preamble for Sec. 46.2, we intend that the schedule must have been in 
place long enough to provide reasonable assurance that the schedule 
change was not motivated by the desire to train miners on what had 
traditionally been a non-work day.
    Paragraph (a) would also provide that persons attending such 
training must be paid at a rate of pay that corresponds to the rate of 
pay they would have received had they been performing their normal work 
tasks. This provision has been adopted from part 48.
    Paragraph (b) would require that if training is given at a location 
other than the normal place of work, miners must be compensated for the 
additional costs, such as mileage, meals, and lodging they may incur in 
attending such training sessions. Although we anticipate that much of 
the training provided under this part will be given at or near miners' 
normal workplaces, in those cases where miners must travel to receive 
required training, they are to be fully compensated for their expenses 
of travel.
    This section has been included in the proposal to ensure that you 
and miners and their representatives are aware of the statutory 
requirements concerning compensation. We are interested in comments on 
whether these proposed provisions adequately address the issue of 
compensation and the scheduling of training.
Section 46.11  Hazard Training
    Under the proposal, persons who are not engaged in mining 
operations integral to extraction or production, and who therefore do 
not fall within the definition of ``miner'' under proposed Sec. 46.2, 
would not be required to receive comprehensive training. Instead, these 
persons would be required to receive site-specific hazard training. As 
discussed earlier, proposed Sec. 46.2 defines ``hazard training'' as 
information or instructions on the hazards a person could be exposed to 
while on mine property, as well as applicable emergency procedures. 
These may include site-specific risks such as unique geologic or 
environmental conditions, traffic patterns, and restricted areas; and 
warning and evacuation signals, emergency procedures, or other special 
safety procedures.
    As a practical matter, ``miners'' who are employees of a 
production-operator would receive orientation at the mine site and 
instruction in site-specific hazards and emergency procedures as part 
of their comprehensive training. ``Miners'' who are employees of 
independent contractors must also receive, in addition to comprehensive 
training, site-specific hazard training at the mine sites where they 
work. Under the proposal, hazard training must be given before persons 
begin their work duties.
    As indicated earlier in the discussion of the definition of 
``miner'' in proposed Sec. 46.2, a number of commenters raised the 
issue of workers whose presence at the mine site is infrequent or whose 
activities at the mine site do not expose them to significant mining 
hazards. These commenters strongly recommended that the proposed rule 
not require these workers to receive comprehensive training. Instead, 
they suggested that these workers be trained in the hazards that exist 
at the mine site where they are working. Several commenters stated that 
a distinction must be made between workers such as independent haulers 
who come on to the mine site only to pick up a load of material and 
then leave, and truck drivers who are working within the mine site and 
who haul from the pit to the crushers.
    Some commenters stated that whether or not a worker is employed by 
a mining company or by an independent contractor should be irrelevant 
in determining what type of training is appropriate. Several commenters 
acknowledged that some contractor employees at their operations were 
directly involved in the extraction or production process, and that it 
would be appropriate to treat these employees as miners for purposes of 
training. A number of commenters agreed that contractor employees who 
are engaged in activities such as milling, extraction, or blasting 
should be considered miners and should receive comprehensive training, 
which would include, as appropriate, new miner training or newly-hired 
experienced miner training.
    Other commenters supporting this view stated that persons such as 
clerical staff who do not go into the plant or quarry do not need 
extensive safety and health training, and should therefore be excluded 
from the rule's definition of ``miner.'' Another commenter indicated 
that the rule must clarify what type of training must be given to 
service

[[Page 18523]]

personnel, delivery people, and occasional mine visitors.
    Commenters generally supported a requirement for site-specific 
hazard training for those workers on mine property who did not receive 
comprehensive training because their involvement in mining operations 
and exposure to mine hazards is limited. Commenters also generally 
supported a requirement for site-specific hazard training for 
contractor employees who also receive comprehensive training because of 
the nature of their activities at mine sites, but who move from job to 
job and mine site to mine site and need initial orientation at every 
new site before they begin work.
    The draft proposal of the Coalition would require site-specific 
hazard training for specific categories of persons, commensurate with 
the associated risks, when the individuals are assigned work on mine 
property. Hazard training would be required for construction workers; 
individuals who enter mine property to service, maintain, assemble, or 
disassemble mine extraction or production machinery; delivery, office 
or scientific workers; customer truck drivers; staff or administrative 
personnel; or others not engaged in extraction or production activities 
as related to mining and milling. The Coalition draft would also 
specifically exempt the listed persons from comprehensive training 
requirements.
    The Coalition draft would not require hazard training for outside 
vendors, visitors, or office or staff personnel who do not work at the 
plant location on a continuing basis and do not have access to the mine 
site, or who are accompanied by someone familiar with hazards specific 
to the mine site.
    Consistent with the Coalition draft and with recommendations from 
other commenters, the proposal would base training requirements on the 
worker's activities at the mine. Under paragraph (a), persons who are 
present at the mine site but who do not fall within the definition of 
``miner'' in proposed Sec. 46.2 would be required to receive only site-
specific hazard training.
    Paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) list examples of persons who would 
be required to receive hazard training, including scientific workers; 
delivery workers and customers; occasional, short-term maintenance or 
service workers or manufacturers' representatives; and outside vendors, 
visitors, office or staff personnel who do not work at the mine site on 
a continuing basis. This list is intended to provide examples of 
individuals who fall within this category, but is not meant to be all-
inclusive. Our intention is that whether a person is a ``miner'' and 
required to receive comprehensive training is determined by the 
person's activities and exposure to mine hazards, not the person's job 
title. For example, construction workers would be exempt from 
comprehensive training requirements under the Coalition draft proposal. 
However, under our proposed rule, whether a construction worker must 
receive comprehensive training or site-specific hazard training would 
depend on what activities the worker is engaged in at the mine site. As 
discussed in greater detail below, hazard training would not be 
required if a person is accompanied at all times by an experienced 
miner.
    The proposed rule, unlike the Coalition draft, would require hazard 
training for outside vendors and visitors. We believe that a vendor or 
visitor who will be in the vicinity of mine hazards, even for a limited 
period of time, should receive hazard training unless accompanied by a 
knowledgeable individual while at the mine site. However, commenters 
should be aware that we do not intend that hazard training be required 
for individuals who may come onto property owned by the mining 
operation but who never travel in the vicinity of the mine site. For 
example, the mine site would include areas where extraction or 
production take place, such as the pit, quarry, stockpiles, mine haul 
roads, or areas where customers travel or haul material. A soft drink 
deliveryman who goes no farther than an office on mine property would 
not be required to have hazard training. Similarly, we do not intend 
that hazard training be required for office or staff personnel whose 
offices are located some distance from the mine site and whose duties 
never require their presence at the mine site. This is consistent with 
commenters who stated that you should not be required to train persons 
who will not be exposed to traditional mine or plant hazards. We 
solicit comments on whether this approach is appropriate, and also 
whether the language of the proposed rule adequately addresses this 
issue.
    Paragraph (b) would require that you also provide site-specific 
hazard training to each person who is an employee of an independent 
contractor, and who is working at the mine as a ``miner'' as defined in 
proposed Sec. 46.2. Although these employees would receive 
comprehensive training, they should also receive some form of site-
specific hazard training, as recommended by a number of commenters. One 
commenter specifically stated that the rule should require hazard 
training to familiarize contractors with hazards specific to mining and 
an overview of company safety rules and the applicable regulations. As 
a practical matter, we expect that many, if not most, independent 
contractor employees will be required to receive hazard training under 
paragraph (a), because they do not meet the definition of ``miner'' 
under proposed Sec. 46.2. However, employees of independent contractor 
employees who do fall within the definition of ``miner'' also need 
effective orientation to their new work environment before they begin 
their job duties. Paragraph (b) would ensure that such training is 
provided. Paragraph (b) would also provide that if these miners have 
received newly-hired experienced miner training at the mine, and have 
therefore been instructed in the hazards and conditions specific to the 
mine, hazard training under proposed Sec. 46.11 would not be required.
    Paragraph (c) would require you to provide hazard training before 
the affected person is exposed to mine hazards. This is intended to 
ensure that persons coming onto mine property will be provided with the 
necessary information about the mine hazards they may encounter at the 
mine site before they are exposed to them. We believe there is no 
reason to allow any delay in providing hazard training; allowing 
persons to be exposed to mine hazards before they receive hazard 
training would defeat the purpose of the training. We expect that 
hazard training will not be overly burdensome and can be effectively 
provided to affected persons before they enter the mine site.
    Under paragraph (d), you may provide hazard training through the 
use of--

    (1) Written hazard warnings;
    (2) Oral instruction;
    (3) Signs and posted warnings;
    (4) Walkaround training; or
    (5) Other appropriate means.

    Commenters had varying opinions on how long hazard training should 
last and what form it should take. One commenter stated that this 
hazard training could last about 15 minutes and would cover the 
conditions and hazards that the person would encounter at the job site. 
Another commenter stated that it might take one or two hours to alert 
the persons receiving the training of the site-specific hazards they 
might encounter at the mine site, such as conditions or equipment in 
the area that could cause an injury. One commenter from a large 
facility stated that any contractor that comes onto the mine site 
receives a one-hour safety rules and awareness orientation to 
familiarize the

[[Page 18524]]

contractor with the company rules and regulations that apply at the 
property. Finally, several commenters stated that adequately marked 
roads and effective warning and directional signs may be sufficient 
hazard training for some types of workers who are not involved with 
mining or extraction or the milling process, such as truck drivers who 
come onto the mine site only to pick up a load of material.
    We intend that the proposed rule allow you the flexibility to 
tailor hazard training to the specific operations and conditions at 
your mines. Depending on the circumstances, you may provide hazard 
training through informal but informative conversations; in other 
cases, you may choose to provide some form of walkaround training by 
guiding the person receiving training around the mine site, pointing 
out particular hazards or indicating those areas where the person 
should not go, or some combination of these methods.
    We also intend that hazard training be appropriate for the 
individual who is receiving it, and that the breadth and depth of 
training may vary depending on the skills, background, and job duties 
of the recipient. For example, it may be acceptable for you to provide 
hazard training to customer truck drivers by handing out a card to the 
drivers alerting them to the mine hazards or directing them away from 
certain areas of the mine site. In other cases, adequate warning signs 
on mine property may be sufficient to direct persons away from 
hazardous areas. However, we expect that in a number of cases site-
specific hazard training should be more extensive, such as for 
contractor employees who fit the definition of ``miner,'' and who have 
received comprehensive training, but who need orientation to the mine 
site and information on the mining operations and mine hazards. 
Additionally, more extensive hazard training would be appropriate where 
an equipment manufacturer's representative comes onto mine property for 
a short period of time to service or inspect a piece of mining 
equipment. Although this individual may not be on mine property for a 
prolonged period, the person's exposure to mine hazards may warrant 
training of a longer duration.
    We seek specific comment on whether the flexibility that would be 
allowed under paragraph (d) in providing hazard training is appropriate 
and whether the language of the proposed rule is sufficiently 
descriptive. We are also interested in whether there may be other 
methods of providing hazard training that should be specifically 
included as examples in the final rule.
    Proposed paragraph (e) would provide that hazard training is not 
required for any person who is accompanied at all times by an 
experienced miner who is familiar with the hazards specific to the mine 
site. The experienced miner referred to in paragraph (e) would not be 
required to be the ``competent person'' defined in proposed Sec. 46.2 
but should be sufficiently familiar with the mine's operations and its 
hazards to ensure that the person accompanied is protected from danger 
while at the mine site. This provision is intended to give you the 
option to forego site-specific hazard training, most likely for one-
time visitors, and instead provide the person with a knowledgeable 
escort. We expect that in many situations it may be easier or more 
expedient for the person to be accompanied, such as a visitor who is 
being taken on a mine tour and would already be escorted by 
knowledgeable mine personnel. However, under the proposal, you may 
choose to accompany any category of person in lieu of providing hazard 
training.
    Commenters should note that proposed Sec. 46.9 would only require 
you to certify training for ``miners.'' As a result, the proposal would 
not require you to make or maintain records of site-specific hazard 
training for persons who do not fit within the definition of ``miner.'' 
We believe that a requirement for recordkeeping of this training, 
particularly given the many operations that accommodate outside 
customers on a regular basis, would be unnecessarily burdensome. 
However, we expect that you will be able to demonstrate to inspectors 
that you are in compliance with site-specific hazard training 
requirements. For example, you could show the inspector the hazard 
training materials that are used; copies of the flyers or handouts 
containing hazard information that you distribute to persons on arrival 
at the mine site; or visitor log books with a checklist that indicates 
that hazard training was given to the visitors. Additionally, you could 
point out the signs on mine property that warn of hazards or direct 
persons away from dangerous areas. We are interested in comments as to 
whether this approach is appropriate, or whether the final rule should 
require some form of recordkeeping for the hazard training received by 
all persons, not just miners.
Section 46.12  Responsibility for Training
    This section of the proposed rule addresses the allocation of 
responsibility for training between production-operators and the 
independent contractors employing persons who work at the production-
operators' mine sites. The provisions of this section respond to the 
concerns expressed by a number of speakers at the public meetings on 
responsibility for ensuring that workers receive required training, and 
are based in part on language in the draft proposal of the Coalition.
    A number of commenters stated that the rule should make clear that 
primary responsibility for training employees of independent 
contractors is on the contractor. These commenters felt that the 
contractor, not the production-operator, would be in the best position 
to train his or her employees in the health and safety aspects of their 
particular tasks. One commenter stated that the main reason a 
production-operator hires an independent contractor is because the 
production-operator does not have the expertise or equipment to do the 
job safely, and that production-operators should not be compelled to 
provide training for independent contractor employees beyond what is 
necessary to address mine-specific hazards. Commenters were concerned 
about situations where independent contractor employees should receive 
comprehensive training, because they are engaged in extraction or 
production or exposed to significant mine hazards. Commenters stated 
that contractor employees frequently are not adequately trained, but 
that it should not be the production-operator's responsibility to 
provide this training. Commenters recommended that the rule 
specifically require contractors to ensure that their employees have 
the necessary training.
    Commenters did agree that contractors need to be aware of the site-
specific hazards at the mine site and supported a requirement for 
production-operators to provide site-specific hazard training to 
contractor employees who come onto mine sites to perform services. This 
section would address these concerns.
    Because the part 46 definition of ``operator'' includes independent 
contractors, the term ``production-operator'' is used in this section 
and is defined in proposed Sec. 46.2 as ``any owner, lessee, or other 
person who operates, controls, or supervises a mine.'' This is intended 
to refer to the person or company who actually operates the mine as a 
whole, as opposed to the independent contractor who performs services 
there. Paragraph (a) provides that each production-operator is 
primarily responsible for providing site-specific hazard training to 
employees of independent contractors; paragraph (b) provides that 
independent contractors who employ

[[Page 18525]]

``miners'' are primarily responsible for providing comprehensive 
training to their employees. This would not prevent a production-
operator from arranging for the independent contractor to provide site-
specific training to the contractor's employees; some independent 
contractors may also choose to arrange for the production-operator to 
provide comprehensive training for the contractors' employees. However, 
the primary responsibility for site-specific hazard training would 
continue to rest on the production-operator, while primary 
responsibility for comprehensive training of contractor employees would 
continue to rest on the independent contractor.
    Production-operators would also be required under paragraph (a) to 
inform independent contractors of site-specific hazards associated with 
the mine site and the obligation of the contractor to comply with our 
regulations, including part 46. Independent contractors would be 
responsible under paragraph (b) for informing the production-operator 
of any hazards of which the contractor is aware that may be created by 
the performance of the contractor's work at the mine. These provisions 
are intended to ensure that production-operators and independent 
contractors share information about hazards at the mine, so that their 
employees may work safely.
    The requirements of this section are consistent with our current 
policy on independent contractors. Under that policy, independent 
contractors are responsible for compliance with the Act and regulations 
with respect to their activities at a particular mine. We also cite 
independent contractors for violations committed by them and their 
employees. However, neither this policy nor the provisions in this 
section change production-operators' basic compliance responsibilities. 
Production-operators are subject to all provisions of the Act and to 
all standards and regulations applicable to their mining operations. 
This overall compliance responsibility includes ensuring compliance by 
independent contractors with the Act and regulations. One way for 
production-operators to address this responsibility is to confirm when 
contracting with independent contractors that the contractors' 
employees will receive safety and health training, and to include this 
as a provision in the contract.
    We solicit comments on the allocation of training responsibility 
between production-operators and independent contractors who employ 
workers at mine sites.

Effective Date and Compliance Deadlines

    We questioned a number of speakers at the public meetings on how 
much time should be allowed for the mining community to come into 
compliance with the final rule. Several speakers recommended that a 
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 certain 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 how to approach this issue, specifically 
on whether phased-in deadlines would be useful in facilitating 
compliance, and what period of time will be needed for full compliance. 
We have not yet determined what an appropriate effective date would be. 
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.

XI. References

Federal Metal and Nonmetallic Mine Safety Act, September 16, 1966.
Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act, December 30, 1969.
Federal Mine Safety and Health Act, November 9, 1977.
H.R. Rep. No. 105-825 for H.R. 4328, 105th Cong., 2d Sess. (1998).
Joint Industry and Labor draft proposed rule for Training and 
Retraining miners engaged in Shell Dredging or employed at Sand, 
Gravel, Surface Stone, Surface Clay, Colloidal Phosphate, or Surface 
Limestone Mines, February 1, 1999.
MSHA, Health and Safety Training and Retraining of Miners, Final 
Rule, October 13, 1978 [43 FR 47454-47468].
MSHA, Notice of Public Meetings, November 3, 1998 [63 FR 59258].
MSHA, Experienced Miner and Supervisor training, Final Rule, October 
6, 1998 [63 FR 53750].
Omnibus Appropriations Act for 1999, Pub. L. 105-277, October 21, 
1998.
S. Rep. No. 105-300 for S. 2440, 105th Cong., 2d Sess., (1998).
Transportation Equity Act ``TEA-21'' (Pub. L. 105-178), June 9, 
1998.
U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior, Mineral 
Industry Surveys, Crushed Stone and Sand and Gravel in the Third 
Quarter of 1998, December 1998, pp. 1-5.
U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries, Stone 
(Crushed), Valentin V. Tepordei, January 1996, pp. 1-2.
U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries, Stone 
(Crushed), Valentin V. Tepordei, February 1997, pp. 1-2.
U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries, Stone 
(Crushed), Valentin V. Tepordei, January 1998, pp. 1-2.
U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries, Stone 
(Crushed), Valentin V. Tepordei, January 1999, pp. 1-2.
U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries, Sand and Gravel 
(Construction), Wallace P. Bolen, January 1996, pp. 1-2.
U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries, Sand and Gravel 
(Construction), Wallace P. Bolen, February 1997, pp. 1-2.
U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries, Sand and Gravel 
(Construction), Wallace P. Bolen, January 1998, pp. 1-2.
U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries, Sand and Gravel 
(Construction), Wallace P. Bolen, January 1999, pp. 1-2.

List of Subjects

30 CFR Part 46

    Mine safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Surface mining, Training programs.

30 CFR Part 48

    Mine safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Training programs.

    Dated: April 6, 1999.
J. Davitt McAteer,
Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health.

    It is proposed to amend Chapter I of Title 30 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 48--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 48 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811, 825.

    2. Section 48.21 is amended by adding a new sentence to the end of 
the section to read as follows:


Sec. 48.21  Scope.

    * * * This part does not apply to training and retraining of miners 
at shell dredging, sand, gravel, surface stone, surface clay, colloidal 
phosphate, and surface limestone mines, which are covered under 30 CFR 
part 46.
    3. A new part 46 is added to subchapter H of Title 30 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations to read as follows:

[[Page 18526]]

PART 46--TRAINING AND RETRAINING OF MINERS ENGAGED IN SHELL 
DREDGING OR EMPLOYED AT SAND, GRAVEL, SURFACE STONE, SURFACE CLAY, 
COLLOIDAL PHOSPHATE, OR SURFACE LIMESTONE MINES

Sec.
46.1  Scope.
46.2  Definitions.
46.3  Training plans.
46.4  Training program instruction.
46.5  New miner training.
46.6  Newly-hired experienced miner training.
46.7  New task training.
46.8  Annual refresher training.
46.9  Records of training.
46.10  Compensation for training.
46.11  Hazard training.
46.12  Responsibility for training.

    Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811, 825.


Sec. 46.1  Scope.

    The provisions of this part set forth the mandatory requirements 
for training and retraining miners working at shell dredging, sand, 
gravel, surface stone, surface clay, colloidal phosphate, or surface 
limestone mines.


Sec. 46.2  Definitions.

    The following definitions apply in this part:
    (a) Act is the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977.
    (b) Competent person is a person designated by the operator who has 
the ability, training, knowledge, or experience to provide training to 
miners on a particular subject. The competent person must also be able 
to evaluate whether the training given to miners is effective.
    (c)(1) Experienced miner is:
    (i) A person who is employed as a miner on April 14, 1999;
    (ii) A person who began employment as a miner after April 14, 1999 
but before the effective date of the final rule and who has received 
new miner training under Sec. 48.25 of this title or under proposed 
requirements published April 14, 1999 which are available from the 
Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances, MSHA, 4015 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington VA 22203; or
    (iii) A miner who has completed 24 hours of new miner training 
under Sec. 46.5 of this part or under Sec. 48.25 of this title and who 
has had at least 12 months of surface mining or equivalent experience.
    (2) Once a miner is an experienced miner under this section, the 
miner will retain that status permanently.
    (d) Extraction or production is the mining, removal, milling, 
crushing, screening, or sizing of minerals at a mine under this part. 
Extraction or production also includes the associated haulage of these 
materials at the mine.
    (e) Hazard training is information or instructions on the hazards a 
person could be exposed to while on mine property, as well as 
applicable emergency procedures. These may include site-specific risks, 
such as unique geologic or environmental conditions, traffic patterns, 
and restricted areas; and warning and evacuation signals, emergency 
procedures, or other special safety procedures.
    (f) Independent contractor is any person, partnership, corporation, 
subsidiary of a corporation, firm, association, or other organization 
that contracts to perform services at a mine under this part.
    (g) Miner is any person, including operators and supervisors, who 
works at a mine under this part and who is engaged in mining operations 
integral to extraction or production.
    (h) New miner is a newly-hired miner who is not an experienced 
miner.
    (i) Normal working hours is a period of time during which a miner 
is otherwise scheduled to work, including the sixth or seventh working 
day if such a work schedule has been established for a sufficient 
period of time to be accepted as the operator's common practice.
    (j) Operator is:
    (1) Any production-operator; or
    (2) Any independent contractor whose employees perform services at 
a mine.
    (k) Production-operator is any owner, lessee, or other person who 
operates, controls, or supervises a mine under this part.
    (l) Task is a component of a job that is performed on a regular 
basis and that requires job knowledge.
    (m) We or us is the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA).
    (n) You is production-operators and independent contractors.


Sec. 46.3  Training plans.

    (a) You must develop and implement a written plan, approved by us 
under either paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, that contains 
effective programs for training new miners and newly-hired experienced 
miners, training miners for new tasks, annual refresher training, and 
hazard training.
    (b) A training plan is considered approved by us if it contains, at 
a minimum, the following information:
    (1) The company name, mine name, and MSHA mine identification 
number;
    (2) The name and position of the person designated by you who is 
responsible for the health and safety training at the mine. This person 
may be the operator;
    (3) A general description of the teaching methods and the course 
materials that are to be used in providing the training, including the 
subject areas to be covered and the approximate time to be spent on 
each subject area;
    (4) A list of the persons who will provide the training, and the 
subject areas in which each person is competent to instruct; and
    (5) The evaluation procedures used to determine the effectiveness 
of training.
    (c) A plan that does not include the minimum information specified 
in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this section must be approved by 
the Regional Manager, Educational Field Services Division, or designee, 
for the region where the mine is located. You also may voluntarily 
submit a plan for Regional Manager approval. Miners and their 
representatives may also request review and approval of the plan by the 
Regional Manager.
    (d) You must provide the miners' representative, if any, with a 
copy of the plan at least 2 weeks before the plan is implemented or 
submitted to the Regional Manager for approval. At mines where no 
miners' representative has been designated, you must post a copy of the 
plan at the mine or provide a copy to each of the miners at least 2 
weeks before you implement the plan or submit it to the Regional 
Manager for approval.
    (e) Within 2 weeks following the receipt or posting of the training 
plan, miners or their representatives may submit written comments on 
the plan to you, or to the Regional Manager, as appropriate.
    (f) The Regional Manager must notify you and miners or their 
representatives in writing of the approval, or status of the approval, 
of the training plan within 30 days after the date on which you 
submitted the training plan to us for approval.
    (g) If you, miners, or miners' representatives wish to appeal a 
decision of the Regional Manager, you must send the appeal, in writing, 
to the Director for Educational Policy and Development, MSHA, 4015 
Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203, within 30 days after 
notification of the Regional Manager's decision. The Director will 
issue a decision within 30 days after receipt of the appeal.
    (h) You must make available at the mine site a copy of the current 
training plan for inspection by us and for examination by miners and 
their representatives. If the training plan is not maintained at the 
mine site, you

[[Page 18527]]

must have the capability to provide the plan upon request by us, 
miners, or their representatives.


Sec. 46.4  Training program instruction.

    (a) You must ensure that each program, course of instruction, or 
training session is:
    (1) Conducted in accordance with the written training plan; and
    (2) Presented by a competent person.
    (b) You may conduct your own training programs or may arrange for 
training to be conducted by: us, state, or other federal agencies; 
associations of operators; miners' representatives; other operators; 
contractors, consultants, manufacturers' representatives; private 
associations; educational institutions; or other training providers.
    (c) You may substitute equivalent training required by the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), or other federal 
or state agencies, to meet requirements under this part, where 
appropriate.
    (d) Training may consist of classroom instruction, instruction at 
the mine site, other innovative training methods, alternative training 
technologies, or any combination.
    (e) Employee safety meetings, including informal safety and health 
talks and instruction, may be credited under this part toward either 
new miner training, newly-hired experienced miner training, or annual 
refresher training requirements, as appropriate, provided that you 
document each training session in accordance with Sec. 46.9 of this 
part.


Sec. 46.5  New miner training.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section, 
you must provide each new miner with no less than 24 hours of training 
as prescribed by paragraphs (b) and (d) of this section. Miners who 
have not received the full 24 hours of new miner training must work 
under the close supervision of an experienced miner.
    (b) You must provide each new miner with the following training 
before the miner begins work:
    (1) An introduction to the work environment, including a visit and 
tour of the mine, or portions of the mine that are representative of 
the entire mine. The method of mining or operation utilized must be 
explained;
    (2) Instruction on the recognition and avoidance of hazards, 
including electrical hazards, at the mine;
    (3) A review of the escape and emergency evacuation plans in effect 
at the mine and instruction on the firewarning signals and firefighting 
procedures; and
    (4) Instruction on the health and safety aspects of the tasks to be 
assigned, including the safe work procedures of such tasks, and the 
mandatory health and safety standards pertinent to such tasks.
    (c) Practice under the close supervision of a competent person may 
be used to fulfill the requirement for training on the health and 
safety aspects of an assigned task in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, 
if hazard recognition training specific to the assigned task is given 
before the miner performs the task.
    (d) Within 60 days after each new miner begins work, you must 
provide the miner with the balance of the 24 hours of training, 
including training in the following subjects:
    (1) Instruction on the statutory rights of miners and their 
representatives under the Act;
    (2) A review and description of the line of authority of 
supervisors and miners' representatives and the responsibilities of 
such supervisors and miners' representatives;
    (3) An introduction to your rules and procedures for reporting 
hazards;
    (4) Instruction and demonstration on the use, care, and maintenance 
of self-rescue and respiratory devices, if used at the mine; and
    (5) A review of first aid methods.
    (e) A new miner who has less than 12 months of surface mining or 
equivalent experience and has completed new miner training under this 
section or under Sec. 48.25 of this title within 36 months before 
beginning work at the mine does not have to repeat new miner training. 
However, you must provide the miner with training specified in 
paragraph (b) of this section before the miner begins work.
    (f) New miner training courses completed under Sec. 48.5 or 
Sec. 48.25 of this title may be used to satisfy the requirements of 
paragraphs (a), (b), and (d) of this section, if:
    (1) The courses were completed by the miner within 36 months before 
beginning work at the mine; and
    (2) The courses are relevant to the subjects specified in 
paragraphs (b) and (d) of this section.


Sec. 46.6  Newly-hired experienced miner training.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, 
you must provide each newly-hired experienced miner with the following 
training before the miner begins work:
    (1) An introduction to the work environment, including a visit and 
tour of the mine, or portions of the mine that are representative of 
the entire mine. The method of mining or operation utilized must be 
explained;
    (2) Instruction on the recognition and avoidance of hazards, 
including electrical hazards, at the mine;
    (3) A review of the escape and emergency evacuation plans in effect 
at the mine and instruction on the firewarning signals and firefighting 
procedures; and
    (4) Instruction on the health and safety aspects of the tasks to be 
assigned, including the safe work procedures of such tasks, and the 
mandatory health and safety standards pertinent to such tasks.
    (b) Except as provided in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, 
within 90 days after each newly-hired experienced miner begins work, 
you must provide the miner with annual refresher training under 
Sec. 46.8 of this part, which must include:
    (1) Instruction on the statutory rights of miners and their 
representatives under the Act;
    (2) A review and description of the line of authority of 
supervisors and miners' representatives and the responsibilities of 
such supervisors and miners' representatives;
    (3) An introduction to your rules and procedures for reporting 
hazards; and
    (4) Instruction and demonstration on the use, care, and maintenance 
of self-rescue and respiratory devices, if used at the mine.
    (c) You must provide an experienced miner who returns to the same 
mine, following an absence of 12 months or less, with training on any 
changes at the mine that have occurred during the miner's absence that 
could adversely affect the miner's health or safety. This training must 
be given before the miner begins work. If the miner missed any part of 
annual refresher training under Sec. 46.8 of this part during the 
absence, you must provide the miner with the missed training within 90 
days after the miner begins work.
    (d) Miners who are employees of independent contractors and who 
work at the mine on a short-term basis, such as drillers or blasters, 
may receive either newly-hired experienced miner training at the mine 
under paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, or site-specific hazard 
training at the mine under Sec. 46.11 of this part.


Sec. 46.7  New task training.

    (a) Before a miner performs a task for which he or she has no 
previous experience, you must train the miner in the safety and health 
aspects and safe work procedures specific to that task. If changes have 
occurred in a miner's regularly assigned task, you must provide the 
miner with training that addresses the changes.

[[Page 18528]]

    (b) Practice under the close supervision of a competent person may 
be used to fulfill the requirement for task training under this 
section.
    (c) Task training provided under this section may be credited 
toward new miner training, as appropriate.


Sec. 46.8  Annual refresher training.

    (a) At least once every 12 months, you must provide each miner with 
no less than 8 hours of refresher training.
    (b) The refresher training must include instruction on changes at 
the mine that could adversely affect the miner's health or safety, and 
may include instruction on such subjects as: applicable health and 
safety requirements, including mandatory health and safety standards; 
transportation controls and communication systems; escape and emergency 
evacuation plans, firewarning and firefighting; ground control; working 
in areas of highwalls, water hazards, pits, and spoil banks; 
illumination and night work; first aid; electrical hazards; prevention 
of accidents; health; explosives; and respiratory devices.


Sec. 46.9  Records of training.

    (a) Upon a miner's completion of each training program, you must 
record and certify on MSHA Form 5000-23, or on a form that contains the 
information listed in paragraph (b) of this section, that the miner has 
completed the training. False certification that training was completed 
is punishable under section 110(a) and (f) of the Act.
    (b) The form must include:
    (1) The printed full name of the person trained (first, middle, 
last names);
    (2) The type of training completed, the duration of the training, 
the date the training was received, and the name of the competent 
person who provided the training;
    (3) The mine name, MSHA mine identification number, and location of 
training (if an institution, the name and address of the institution).
    (4) The statement, ``False certification is punishable under 
section 110(a) and (f) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act,'' 
printed in bold letters and in a conspicuous manner; and
    (5) A statement signed by the person designated as responsible for 
health and safety training in the MSHA-approved training plan for the 
mine that states, ``I certify that the above training has been 
completed.''
    (c) You must provide a copy of the training certificate to each 
miner at the completion of each training program. When a miner leaves 
your employ, you must provide each miner with a copy of his or her 
training certificates upon request.
    (d) You must make available at the mine site a copy of each miner's 
training certificates for inspection by us and for examination by 
miners and their representatives. If training certificates are not 
maintained at the mine site, you must have the capability to provide 
the certificates upon request by us, miners, or their representatives.
    (e) You must maintain copies of training certificates and training 
records for each currently employed miner during his or her employment 
and for at least 12 months after a miner terminates employment.


Sec. 46.10  Compensation for training.

    (a) Training must be conducted during normal working hours; persons 
required to receive such training must be paid at a rate of pay that 
corresponds to the rate of pay they would have received had they been 
performing their normal work tasks.
    (b) If training is given at a location other than the normal place 
of work, persons required to receive such training must be compensated 
for the additional costs, including mileage, meals, and lodging, they 
may incur in attending such training sessions.


Sec. 46.11  Hazard training.

    (a) You must provide site-specific hazard training to any person 
who is not a miner as defined under Sec. 46.2 of this part but is 
present at a mine site under this part, including:
    (1) Scientific workers;
    (2) Delivery workers and customers;
    (3) Occasional, short-term maintenance or service workers, or 
manufacturers' representatives; and
    (4) Outside vendors, visitors, office or staff personnel who do not 
work at the mine site on a continuing basis.
    (b) You must provide site-specific hazard training to each person 
who is an employee of an independent contractor and who is working at 
the mine as a miner, as defined in Sec. 46.2 of this part, unless the 
miner receives newly-hired experienced miner training at the mine under 
Sec. 46.6.
    (c) You must provide hazard training under this section before the 
affected person is exposed to mine hazards.
    (d) You may provide hazard training through the use of written 
hazard warnings, oral instruction, signs and posted warnings, 
walkaround training, or other appropriate means.
    (e) Hazard training under this section is not required for any 
person who is accompanied at all times by an experienced miner who is 
familiar with hazards specific to the mine site.


Sec. 46.12  Responsibility for training.

    (a) Each production-operator has primary responsibility for 
providing site-specific hazard training to employees of independent 
contractors who are required to receive hazard training under 
Sec. 46.11 of this part. Further, the production-operator must provide 
information to each independent contractor who employs a person at the 
mine on site-specific hazards associated with the mine site and the 
obligation of the contractor to comply with our regulations, including 
the requirements of this part.
    (b) Each independent contractor who employs a miner, as defined in 
Sec. 46.2, at the mine has primary responsibility for complying with 
Secs. 46.3 through 46.10 of this part, including providing new miner 
and newly-hired experienced miner training, new task training, and 
annual refresher training. Further, the independent contractor must 
inform the production-operator of any hazards of which the contractor 
is aware that may be created by the performance of the contractor's 
work at the mine.

[FR Doc. 99-8894 Filed 4-8-99; 9:52 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-43-P