[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 14 (Wednesday, January 22, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2941-2946]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-1306]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mine Safety and Health Administration

30 CFR Part 18

RIN 1219-AA98 (Phase 10)


Alternate Locking Devices for Plug and Receptacle-Type Connectors 
on Mobile Battery-Powered Machines

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: MSHA is proposing to amend the existing regulation by allowing 
the optional use of alternative locking devices for plugs and 
receptacles to secure battery plugs to receptacles. The proposed rule 
would eliminate the need to file petitions for modification to use this 
alternative means of securing battery plugs to receptacles.
    MSHA is using direct final rulemaking for this action because the 
Agency expects that there will be no significant adverse comments on 
the rule. If no significant adverse comments are received, MSHA will 
confirm the effective date of the direct final rule. If significant 
adverse comments are received, MSHA will withdraw the direct final rule 
and proceed with rulemaking on this proposed rule. A subsequent Federal 
Register document will be published to announce MSHA's action.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 21, 2003. Submit 
written comments on the information collection requirements by February 
21, 2003. The direct final rule will become effective March 10, 2003, 
unless we receive significant adverse comments by February 21, 2003. If 
we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the 
direct final rule and proceed with notice and comment rulemaking.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be clearly identified as such and transmitted 
either electronically to [email protected], by facsimile to (202) 693-
9441, or by regular mail or hand delivery to MSHA, Office of Standards, 
Regulations, and Variances, 1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2313, Arlington, 
Virginia 22209-3939. You may contact MSHA with any format questions. 
Comments are posted for public viewing at http://www.msha.gov/currentcomments.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marvin W. Nichols, Jr., Director; 
Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA; phone: (202) 
693-9442; facsimile: (202) 693-9441; E-mail: [email protected]. 
You can view comments filed on this rulemaking at http://www.msha.gov/currentcomments.htm.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Direct Final Rules

    Concurrent with this proposed rule, we also are publishing a 
separate, substantively identical direct final rule in the Final Rule 
section of this Federal Register. The simultaneous publication of these 
documents will speed notice and comment rulemaking under Sec.  553 of 
the Administrative Procedure Act should we have to withdraw the direct 
final rule. All interested parties should

[[Page 2942]]

comment at this time because we will not initiate an additional comment 
period.
    MSHA has determined that the subject of this rulemaking is suitable 
for a direct final rule. The Agency believes the actions taken are 
noncontroversial and therefore does not anticipate receiving any 
significant adverse comments. If MSHA does not receive significant 
adverse comments on or before February 21, 2003, the Agency will 
publish a notice in the Federal Register no later than March 10, 2003, 
confirming the effective date of the direct final rule.
    For purposes of the direct final rulemaking, a significant adverse 
comment is one that explains why the rule would be inappropriate, 
including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or 
why it would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. In 
determining whether a significant adverse comment necessitates 
withdrawal of the direct final rule, MSHA will consider whether the 
comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive 
response in a notice and comment process. A comment recommending an 
addition to the rule will not be considered a significant adverse 
comment unless the comment states why this rule would be ineffective 
without the addition. If significant adverse comments are received, the 
Agency will publish a notice of significant adverse comments in the 
Federal Register withdrawing the direct final rule no later than March 
10, 2003.
    In the event the direct final rule is withdrawn because of 
significant adverse comments, the Agency can proceed with the 
rulemaking by addressing the comments received and publishing a final 
rule. The comment period for the proposed rule runs concurrently with 
that of the direct final rule. Any comments received under the 
companion direct final rule will be treated as comments regarding the 
proposed rule. Likewise, significant adverse comments submitted to the 
proposed rule will be considered as comments to the companion rule. The 
Agency will consider such comments in developing a subsequent final 
rule.

II. Background Information

    Currently, under Sec.  18.41 of Title 30, Code of Federal 
Regulations, MSHA sets forth design and construction requirements for 
plug and receptacle-type connectors used with permissible electric 
equipment approved under part 18. These technical requirements were 
last revised in March of 1968, which represented the latest advances in 
battery connector technology considered appropriate for use on mining 
equipment at that time.
    Over the past thirty years, there have been technological 
improvements to the methods used for securing battery plugs to 
receptacles. Since the provisions of existing section 18.41(f) do not 
reflect the latest state-of-the-art technology, mine operators file 
petitions for modification under Section 101(c) of the Mine Act to take 
advantage of the technological advancements. Since 1980, there have 
been approximately 300 petitions filed and granted under Section 101(c) 
requesting modification to 30 CFR 75.503 (Permissible electric face 
equipment; maintenance) and 18.41(f) (Plug and receptacle-type 
connectors) to allow the use of alternate locking devices. The means of 
securing battery connectors permitted under this proposed rule would 
allow for the use of padlocks and other equally effective mechanical 
devices that preclude the inadvertent separation of the battery plug 
from the receptacle.
    In some operations, mine operators encountered difficulties with 
padlocks in both normal and emergency situations. The use of padlocks 
requires the maintenance of keys by authorized personnel. Due to the 
nature of mining operations, padlocks may be filled with mining debris, 
rendering them difficult or impossible to open with a key. Padlock keys 
can be misplaced, broken, or bent and may become unusable. This can go 
unnoticed by the operator until an emergency occurs, when the key may 
be unavailable or unusable. The removal of a padlock to permit the 
disconnection of a battery plug in an emergency situation, such as a 
battery fire, requires a longer period of time and greater effort than 
the removal of any of the other locking devices permitted in this 
proposed rule. However, where keys are accessible and padlocks are 
relatively free from accumulation of dust, padlocks have proven to be 
effective.
    In 1987, to address the problems encountered with the use of 
padlocks, MSHA issued a policy allowing use of an alternative to 
padlocks. This policy permits the use of a device that is captive and 
requires a special tool to disengage and allow separation of the 
connector. A device is captive when a mechanical connection is made 
permanent by a locking device that is confined in its mounting location 
in a manner where, once installed, it cannot be inadvertently removed. 
The mechanical connection can only be made non-permanent by direct and 
intervening action using a special tool. A special tool is one that is 
not normally carried by miners and is used to ensure that constant 
pressure is maintained to prevent inadvertent separation of the plug 
from the receptacle.
    Since 1980, mine operators have also been granted permission, 
through the petition for modification process, to use a spring-loaded 
locking device. MSHA determined that spring-loaded locking devices 
provide at least the same measure of protection as padlocks and captive 
locking devices. These devices maintain constant pressure on the 
threaded ring or equivalent mechanical fastening to prevent the plug 
from accidentally disengaging from the receptacle.
    For both alternate locking devices, the captive locking device and 
the spring loaded locking device, a warning tag is also required to 
alert the user that the connector must not be disengaged under load. 
Withdrawal of a battery plug from the receptacle while the machine is 
energized (i.e., under load) can create incendive arcing and sparking 
that could result in a personal injury, explosion, or fire. The 
requirement for the warning tag, along with part 48 new task training 
requirements, provide for appropriate hazard recognition when using 
alternative locking devices. MSHA is unaware of any adverse incidents 
involving alternate locking devices.
    By issuing this proposed rule, MSHA is responding to the 
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 
12866 that agencies review their regulations to determine their 
effectiveness and to implement any changes indicated by the review that 
will make the regulation more flexible and efficient for stakeholders 
and small businesses while maintaining needed protections for workers. 
The amended rule would maintain the protection afforded by the existing 
standard.

III. Discussion of Alternative Locking Devices on Mobile Battery-
Powered Machines

A. Paragraph 18.41

    Section 18.41 addresses connectors used on battery and non battery-
powered machines. Section 18.41(f) specifies requirements for plug and 
receptacle-type connectors used on mobile battery-powered machines 
employed in underground gassy mines. This rulemaking proposes to modify 
paragraph (f) of 30 CFR 18.41 by adding two new provisions allowing the 
use of devices that provide at least the same measure of protection as 
that afforded by the existing standards. The Agency recognizes that 
battery-powered machine designs differ from conventional machine 
designs

[[Page 2943]]

employing trailing cables. The energy to battery-powered equipment is 
carried on-board the machine with rechargeable battery assemblies, 
rather than being transmitted via a trailing cable from a section power 
center. Because of the inherent design limitations of battery-powered 
machines, there is no practical way to automatically remove all 
electrical power from battery-powered machines. Machines powered by 
trailing cables have circuit-interrupting devices that can be used to 
de-energize them, whereas most battery-powered machines rely on a plug 
and receptacle for de-energization. The proper procedure for removing 
power from a battery-powered machine is to first open the main machine 
disconnect device and then to disengage the plug from the receptacle. 
This effectively isolates the battery power from the machine.

B. Subparagraph 18.41(f)(1)

    Subparagraph 30 CFR 18.41(f)(1) would retain the existing provision 
that a plug padlocked to the receptacle would be acceptable in lieu of 
an interlock provided the plug is held in place by a threaded ring or 
equivalent mechanical fastening in addition to the padlock. This 
paragraph also would retain the provision that a connector within a 
padlocked enclosure would be acceptable.
    A padlock used on a battery plug and receptacle-type connector 
serves a dual purpose. It secures the threaded ring or equivalent 
mechanical fastening in place. A padlock is also used as a means to 
prevent the removal of the plug from the receptacle by unauthorized 
personnel. In this respect, only those persons having keys are 
considered authorized to remove the plug from the receptacle.

C. Subparagraph 18.41(f)(2)

    Subparagraph 30 CFR 18.41(f)(2) would be a new provision which 
provides for an alternate method for securing the battery plug to the 
receptacle. The rule would provide that a plug which is held in place 
by a threaded ring or equivalent mechanical fastening will be 
acceptable provided that the threaded ring is secured in place with a 
device that is captive. It would also require a special tool to 
disengage the device and allow for the separation of the connector. It 
would further require a warning tag that states: ``DO NOT DISENGAGE 
UNDER LOAD.''

D. Subparagraph 18.41(f)(3)

    Subparagraph 30 CFR 18.41(f)(3) would be a new provision which 
provides for another alternate method for securing the battery plug to 
the receptacle. The rule states that a plug held in place by a spring-
loaded or other locking device that maintains constant pressure against 
a threaded ring or equivalent mechanical fastening would be acceptable 
provided that it would secure the plug from accidental separation. It 
would further require a warning tag that states: ``DO NOT DISENGAGE 
UNDER LOAD.''
    This subparagraph would allow for the use of other locking devices 
that may become available in the future. The Agency has included this 
language to allow for acceptance of equally effective devices. Devices 
not explicitly defined in this rulemaking must be equally effective and 
provide at least the same measure of protection as those incorporated 
under this section.
    Neither of the alternatives in subparagraphs 18.41(f)(2) or (f)(3) 
would impose additional requirements to the 1987 MSHA policy or the 
granted petitions for modification.

IV. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Regulatory Flexibility Act)

Introduction

    MSHA is proposing to amend 30 CFR 18.41(f), concerning plug and 
receptacle-type connectors for mobile battery-powered equipment. The 
proposed rule would revise and update the existing regulation by 
allowing the use of alternate locking devices to secure battery plugs 
to receptacles. Two alternate locking devices are addressed in this 
proposed rule.
    (1) Captive locking devices requiring use of a special tool. These 
devices have been accepted since 1987 under an MSHA policy allowing 
their usage.
    (2) Spring loaded or other locking devices. Spring-loaded locking 
devices have been accepted by MSHA under the 101(c) Petition for 
Modification process.
    The proposed rule, once promulgated, would eliminate the need to 
file petitions for modification (PFM) to use spring-loaded locking 
devices to secure battery plugs to receptacles. It would also codify 
the 1987 MSHA policy of allowing acceptance of captive locking devices.
    Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 requires that regulatory agencies 
assess both the costs and benefits of intended regulations. MSHA has 
fulfilled this requirement for this proposed rule, and based upon its 
economic analysis, has determined that the proposed rule would not have 
an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy. Therefore, it 
would not be an economically significant regulatory action pursuant to 
Sec.  3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866.
    The proposed rule would eliminate the need for mine operators of 
underground gassy mines, who choose to use plug and receptacle-type 
connectors for mobile battery-powered equipment, to file PFMs, and 
thereby would generate cost savings.
    From 1999 to 2001, 66 petitions were filed and granted to modify 
the application of 30 CFR 75.503 (permissible electric face equipment; 
maintenance) and 30 CFR 18.41(f) (plug and receptacle-type connectors). 
Through November 20, 2002, 23 petitions have been filed, for a total of 
89 filed petitions from 1999 to 2002. On average, 22 petitions were 
filed during each of the past 4 years.

Mining Sectors Affected

    The proposed rule would apply to all underground gassy mines. All 
underground coal mines are considered gassy mines and are affected by 
this proposed rule. Gassy metal and nonmetal (M/NM) mines would also be 
affected by the proposed rule. Currently there are no battery-powered 
machines of the type covered by the proposed rule in any of the gassy 
M/NM mines. Since these devices have not been used in M/NM mines, for 
purposes of this economic analysis, MSHA assumes that M/NM mines would 
not be affected by this rule. MSHA estimates that, on average, 22 
underground coal mines per year would be affected by this rule.

Benefits

    MSHA has qualitatively determined that the proposed rule, which 
would permit use of alternate locking devices on mobile battery-powered 
equipment instead of using padlocks, would yield safety benefits 
relative to the existing rule, which does not permit use of alternate 
locking devices on mobile battery-powered equipment. The use of 
alternate locking devices in lieu of padlocks on mobile battery-powered 
equipment would eliminate the problems associated with difficult 
removal of padlocks.

Compliance Costs

    Cost savings from the proposed rule would accrue to underground 
coal mines that choose to use spring-loaded locking devices on mobile 
battery-powered equipment since they would no longer have to file a 
PFM. Cost savings from the proposed rule are estimated to be $9,747 per 
year. The cost savings are based upon the elimination of the filing of 
an average of 22 petitions per year. It is projected that of the 22 
mines, 19 would employ 20 to

[[Page 2944]]

500 workers, and 3 would employ fewer than 20 workers. For 3 mines that 
employ fewer than 20 workers these cost savings would be $1,329. For 
the remaining 19 mines that employ 20 to 500 workers the cost savings 
would be $8,418.

Mines Employing Fewer Than 20 Workers

    The cost savings of $1,329 for mines employing fewer than 20 
workers are derived in the following manner. On average, a mine 
supervisor, earning $54.92 per hour, takes 8 hours to prepare a 
petition (3 petitions x 8 hours x $54.92 per hour = $1,318). In 
addition, a clerical worker, earning $19.58 per hour, takes 0.1 hours 
to copy and mail a petition (3 petitions x 0.1 hours x $19.58 per hour 
= $6). Furthermore, MSHA estimates that, on average, each petition is 5 
pages long, photocopying costs are $0.15 per page, and postage is $1 [3 
petitions x ((5 pages x $0.15 per page) + $1) = $5].

Mines Employing 20 to 500 Workers

    The cost savings of $8,418 for mines that employ 20 to 500 workers 
are derived in the following manner. On average, a mine supervisor, 
earning $54.92 per hour, takes 8 hours to prepare a petition (19 
petitions x 8 hours x $54.92 per hour = $8,348). In addition, a 
clerical worker, earning $19.58 per hour, takes 0.1 hours to copy and 
mail a petition (19 petitions x 0.1 hours x $19.58 per hour = $37). 
Furthermore, MSHA estimates that, on average, each petition is 5 pages 
long, photocopying costs are $0.15 per page, and postage is $1 [19 
petitions x ((5 pages x $0.15 per page) + $1) = $33].
    There are no substantive changes proposed that apply to any mine 
that chooses not to use alternate locking devices on mobile battery-
powered equipment. Thus, these mines would not incur costs nor generate 
cost savings as a result of the proposed rule.

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 as amended 
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), 
MSHA has analyzed the impact of the proposed rule on small businesses. 
Further, MSHA has made a determination with respect to whether or not 
the Agency can certify that the proposed rule would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
that are covered by these rulemakings. Under SBREFA amendments to the 
RFA, MSHA must include in the rule a factual basis for this 
certification. If the proposed rule would have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, then the Agency must 
develop an initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

Definition of a Small Mine

    Under the RFA, in analyzing the impact of a rule on small entities, 
MSHA must use the SBA definition for a small entity or, after 
consultation with the SBA Office of Advocacy, establish an alternative 
definition for the mining industry by publishing that definition in the 
Federal Register for notice and comment. MSHA has not taken such an 
action, and hence is required to use the SBA definition.
    The SBA defines a small entity in the mining industry as an 
establishment with 500 or fewer employees (13 CFR 121.201). All of the 
mines affected by this rulemaking fall into this category and hence can 
be viewed as sharing the special regulatory concerns which the RFA was 
designed to address.
    Traditionally, the Agency has also looked at the impacts of its 
rules on a subset of mines with 500 or fewer employees''those with 
fewer than 20 employees, which the mining community refers to as 
``small mines.'' These small mines differ from larger mines not only in 
the number of employees, but also, among other things, in economies of 
scale in material produced, in the type and amount of production 
equipment, and in supply inventory. Therefore, their costs of complying 
with MSHA rules and the impact of MSHA rules on them would also tend to 
be different. It is for this reason that ``small mines,'' as 
traditionally defined by the mining community, are of special concern 
to MSHA.
    This analysis complies with the legal requirements of the RFA for 
an analysis of the impacts on ``small entities'' while continuing 
MSHA's traditional look at ``small mines.'' MSHA concludes that it can 
certify that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities that are covered by 
this rulemaking. The Agency has determined that this is the case both 
for mines affected by this rulemaking with fewer than 20 employees and 
for mines affected by this rulemaking with 500 or fewer employees.

Factual Basis for Certification

    The Agency's analysis of impacts on ``small entities'' begins with 
a ``screening'' analysis. The screening compares the estimated 
compliance costs of a rule for small entities in the sector affected by 
the rule to the estimated revenues for those small entities. When 
estimated compliance costs are less than one percent of the estimated 
revenues, or they are negative (that is, they provide a cost savings), 
the Agency believes it is generally appropriate to conclude that there 
is no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. When estimated compliance costs exceed one percent of 
revenues, it tends to indicate that further analysis may be warranted. 
Using either MSHA's or SBA's definition of a small mine, the proposed 
rule would result only in cost savings to affected mines. Therefore, 
the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities using either MSHA's or SBA's 
definition of a small mine. Accordingly, we are publishing the factual 
basis for our regulatory flexibility certification statement in the 
Federal Register, as a part of this preamble, and are providing a copy 
to the Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy. We also will 
mail a copy of the direct final rule, including the preamble and 
certification statement, to mine operators and miners' representatives 
and post it on our Internet Home page at http://www.msha.gov.

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    The proposed amendments to 30 CFR 18.41(f) would not introduce any 
new paperwork requirements that are subject to OMB approval under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act. In addition, the third-party disclosure 
requirements proposed for 30 CFR 18.41(f)(2) and (3) are not considered 
a ``collection of information'' because the standard provides the exact 
language for warning tags [see 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2)].
    As a result of the proposed rule, the number of petitions for 
modification filed annually related to battery plugs would be reduced. 
Therefore, the proposed rule would result in reducing burden hours and 
costs in the ICR 1219-0065 paperwork package, which concerns the filing 
of petitions for modification.
    The proposed rule would result in 178.2 burden hour savings 
annually and associated annual burden cost savings of $9,709 related to 
the elimination of 22 petitions annually for alternate locking devices 
to secure battery plugs to receptacles. Of this total, for the 3 mines 
that employ fewer than 20 workers, there would be 24.3 burden hours 
savings annually and associated annual burden cost savings of $1,324. 
For the 19 mines that employ 20 to 500 workers, there would be 153.9 
burden hours

[[Page 2945]]

savings annually and associated annual burden cost savings of $8,385.

Mines Employing Fewer Than 20 Workers

    The annual reduction of 24.3 burden hours and the $1,324 cost 
savings that would occur for the 3 mines that employ fewer than 20 
workers are derived in the following manner. On average, a mine 
supervisor takes 8 hours to prepare a petition (3 petitions x 8 hours = 
24 hours). In addition, on average, a clerical worker takes 0.1 hours, 
6 minutes, to copy and mail a petition (3 petitions x 0.1 hours = 0.3 
hours). The hourly wage rate for a mine supervisor is $54.92 ($54.92 x 
24 burden hours = $1,318.10). The hourly wage rate for a clerical 
worker is $19.58 ($19.58 0.3 burden hours = $5.90).

Mines Employing 20 to 500 Workers

    The annual reduction of 153.9 burden hours and the $8,385 cost 
savings that would occur for the 19 mines that employ 20 to 500 workers 
are derived in the following manner. On average, a mine supervisor 
takes 8 hours to prepare a petition (19 petitions x 8 hours = 152 
hours). In addition, on average, a clerical worker takes 0.1 hours, 6 
minutes, to copy and mail a petition (19 petitions x 0.1 hours = 1.9 
hours). The hourly wage rate for a mine supervisor is $54.92 ($54.92 x 
152 burden hours = $8,347.84). The hourly wage rate for a clerical 
worker is $19.58 ($19.58 x 1.9 burden hours = $37.20).
    The amendment to 30 CFR 18.41(f) would eliminate a need for mine 
operators to file petitions for modification. Resulting from the 
decreased number of petitions, MSHA would not conduct investigations 
related to the determination the merits of the petition. The paperwork 
containing the information necessary to permit investigation of the 
petition for modification would not be needed. The petition for 
modification paperwork requirements are contained in 30 CFR 44.9, 44.10 
and 44.11. They are approved under OMB control number 1219-0065. We are 
not proposing to amend Sec. Sec.  44.9, 44.10, or 44.11. We are only 
proposing to amend a regulation that is frequently petitioned. 
Consequently, MSHA would not submit a paperwork package with this 
direct final rule. Although it is not necessary to update the 
Information Collection Requirement document at this time, we will 
submit the necessary paperwork to record the decrease in burden when 
appropriate. Our estimate of the number of petitions submitted each 
year would be reduced by the average number of petitions for 
modification currently submitted to modify the current regulation.

VII. Other Regulatory Considerations

A. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 and Executive Order 12875 
(Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership)

    For purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, as well 
as E.O. 12875, the proposed rule would not include any Federal mandate 
that might result in increased expenditures by State, local, and tribal 
governments, or increased expenditures by the private sector of more 
than $100 million. MSHA is not aware of any State, local, or tribal 
government that either owns or operates underground coal mines.

B. Executive Order 12630 (Governmental Actions and Interference With 
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights)

    The proposed rule would not be subject to Executive Order 12630 
because it does not involve implementation of a policy with takings 
implications.

C. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    MSHA has reviewed Executive Order 12988 and determined that the 
proposed rule would not unduly burden the Federal court system. The 
Agency wrote the proposed rule to provide a clear legal standard for 
affected conduct and has reviewed it carefully to eliminate drafting 
errors and ambiguities.

D. Executive Order 13045 (Health and Safety Effect on Children)

    In accordance with Executive Order 13045, MSHA has evaluated the 
environmental health and safety effects of the proposed rule on 
children and has determined that it would have no adverse effects on 
children.

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    MSHA has reviewed the proposed rule in accordance with Executive 
Order 13132 regarding federalism and has determined that it would not 
have federalism implications.

F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments)

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

G. Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)

    In accordance with Executive Order 13211, MSHA has reviewed the 
proposed rule and has determined that it would have no adverse effect 
on the production or price of coal. Consequently, it would have no 
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy, and no reasonable alternatives to this action are necessary.

H. Executive Order 13272 (Proper Consideration of Small Entities in 
Agency Rulemaking)

    In accordance with Executive Order 13272, MSHA has thoroughly 
reviewed the proposed rule to assess and take appropriate account of 
its potential impact on small businesses, small governmental 
jurisdictions, and small organizations. As discussed in section V in 
this preamble, MSHA has determined that the proposed rule would not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

VIII. Petitions for Modification

    On the effective date of the direct final rule, all existing 
petitions for modification for alternate locking devices for plug and 
receptacle-type connectors on mobile battery-powered machines would be 
superseded. Mine operators who have a previously granted petition 
modifying 30 CFR 75.503 and 18.41(f) would thereafter be considered in 
compliance with this rule, as long as the equipment is maintained in 
compliance with the specifications stated in the original petition for 
modification. All battery-powered equipment approved with locking 
devices prior to the effective date of this rule would be considered 
compliant, as long as the equipment is maintained in accordance with 
the originally approved specifications.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 18

    Mine safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Underground mining.

    Dated: January 13, 2003.
Dave D. Lauriski,
Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, and under the authority of 
the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, we are proposing to 
amend chapter I, subpart B, part 18 of title 30 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations as follows:

[[Page 2946]]

PART 18--ELECTRIC MOTOR-DRIVEN MINE EQUIPMENT AND ACCESSORIES

    1. The authority citation for part 18 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 30 U.S.C. 957, 961.

Subpart B--[Proposed Amendment]

    2. Paragraph (f) of Sec.  18.41 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  18.41  Plug and receptacle-type connectors.

* * * * *
    (f) For a mobile battery-powered machine, a plug and receptacle-
type connector will be acceptable in lieu of an interlock provided:
    (1) The plug is padlocked to the receptacle and is held in place by 
a threaded ring or equivalent mechanical fastening in addition to a 
padlock. A connector within a padlocked enclosure will be acceptable; 
or,
    (2) The plug is held in place by a threaded ring or equivalent 
mechanical fastening, in addition to the use of a device that is 
captive and requires a special tool to disengage and allow for the 
separation of the connector. All connectors using this means of 
compliance shall have a clearly visible warning tag that states: ``DO 
NOT DISENGAGE UNDER LOAD''; or,
    (3) The plug is held in place by a spring-loaded or other locking 
device, that maintains constant pressure against a threaded ring or 
equivalent mechanical fastening, to secure the plug from accidental 
separation. All connectors using this means of compliance shall have a 
clearly visible warning tag that states: ``DO NOT DISENGAGE UNDER 
LOAD.''

[FR Doc. 03-1306 Filed 1-21-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-43-P