[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 120 (Monday, June 23, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37077-37082]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-15700]


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

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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: MSHA is amending the existing regulation by allowing the 
optional use of alternative locking devices to secure battery plugs to 
receptacles. The final rule eliminates the need to file petitions for 
modification to use this alternative means of securing battery plugs to 
receptacles.
    MSHA initially proposed using direct final rulemaking for this 
action because the Agency expected that there would be no significant 
adverse comments on the rule. However, MSHA received four comments, one 
of which was considered a significant adverse comment, resulting in 
MSHA withdrawing the direct final rule and proceeding with rulemaking 
based on the concurrently published proposed rule on this subject.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation is effective August 22, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marvin W. Nichols, Jr., Director, 
Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, 1100 Wilson 
Boulevard, Room 2352, Arlington, Virginia 22209-3939. Mr. Nichols can 
be reached at [email protected] (Internet e-mail), 202-693-9440 
(voice), or 202-693-9441 (fax). You may obtain copies of the final rule 
in alternative formats by calling this number. The alternative formats 
available are either a large print version of the final rule or the 
final rule in an electronic file on computer disk. The final rule also 
is available on the Internet at http://www.msha.gov/REGSINFO.HTM.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 

I. 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 Sec.  18.41(f) do not 
reflect the latest state-of-the-art technology, mine operators must 
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 final rule allow for 
the use of padlocks and other equally effective mechanical devices that 
preclude the inadvertent separation of the battery plug from the 
receptacle. The alternate locking devices permitted under this final 
rule also provide for at least the same measure of protection, as set 
forth in the existing regulation, and do not reduce protection to 
miners as required by section 101(a)(9) of the Mine Act.
    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 become 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

[[Page 37078]]

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 final rule. However, where keys are accessible and padlocks are 
relatively free from accumulation of dust and other materials, 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 (e.g. allen wrench) 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 whereby, once installed, it cannot 
become inadvertently removed. The mechanical connection can only be 
made non-permanent by a 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, beyond that which may be 
achieved by hand pressure, is maintained to prevent inadvertent 
separation of the plug from the receptacle. 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. A warning tag is also required to 
alert the user that the connector must not be disengaged under load.
    The requirement for the warning tag, along with part 48 task 
training requirements, provide for appropriate hazard recognition when 
using alternative locking devices in lieu of a padlock. Existing Sec.  
48.7 (Training of miners assigned to a task in which they have had no 
previous experience; minimum courses of instruction), requires that 
miners be instructed in safe operating procedures applicable to new or 
modified machines or equipment to be installed or put into operation in 
the mine, which require new or different operating procedures. A 
padlock not only serves as a mechanical means to prevent inadvertent 
separation of the plug from the receptacle; it also precludes the 
disconnection of the battery plug from the receptacle by unauthorized 
persons, unfamiliar with the potential hazards associated with 
disconnecting the plug from the receptacle under load. The warning tag 
serves as a deterrent, like the padlock, for separation of the plug and 
receptacle under load. For the purposes of this final rule, a warning 
tag can be either a metal plate or a label with permanent lettering on 
a wear-resistant material. It must be prominently displayed on or 
attached to an exterior surface of the battery connector housing.
    Since 1980, mine operators have also been granted permission, 
through the petition for modification process under section 101(c) of 
the Mine Act, to use a spring-loaded locking device. MSHA has 
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. The use of this method also requires that a 
warning tag be attached near the locking device to remind the user not 
to disengage the plug from the receptacle under load. MSHA is unaware 
of any adverse incidents involving alternate locking devices.
    By issuing this final 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 final 
rule will maintain the protection afforded by the existing standard.

II. 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 permissible mobile battery-powered 
machines employed in underground gassy mines. This final rule modifies 
paragraph (f) of 30 CFR 18.41 by adding two new provisions allowing the 
use of devices that provide at least the same protection as that 
afforded by the existing standards, and does not reduce safety. The 
Agency recognizes that battery-powered machine designs differ from 
conventional machine designs 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.
    Another acceptable alternative to padlocked connectors, permitted 
under existing Sec.  18.41(a), is the use of connectors in which the 
mating or separation of the male and female electrodes occurs within an 
explosion-proof enclosure and an electrical interlock circuit is 
provided to cause automatic interruption of the circuit before the male 
and female electrodes are separated. These types of connectors do not 
require a warning tag or a locking ring held captive by an external 
device.
    Public comments have been received under the proposed rule and 
resulted in a change to the rule language. The change is made in 
Sec. Sec.  18.41(f)(2) and (f)(3). An explicit statement for use on 
warning tags is provided in the two paragraphs. However, equivalent 
statements comparable to ``DO NOT DISENGAGE UNDER LOAD,'' which 
indicates a hazard exists when disengaging plugs from receptacles, are 
allowed. Judgement of an alternate statement as to the equivalency in 
safety will be provided by the MSHA's Approval and Certification Center 
during the standard approval process of equipment.

B. Section 18.41(f)(1)

    30 CFR 18.41(f)(1) retains the existing provision that a plug 
padlocked to the receptacle is 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 
retains the provision that a connector within a padlocked enclosure is 
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 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. No comments were received on 
Sec.  18.41(f)(1). Therefore the final

[[Page 37079]]

language remains unchanged from the proposed rule.

C. Section 18.41(f)(2)

    30 CFR 18.41(f)(2) is a new provision that provides for an 
alternate method for securing the battery plug to the receptacle. The 
final rule specifies 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 also requires a special tool to disengage the device and 
allows for the separation of the connector. It further requires a 
warning tag that states: ``DO NOT DISENGAGE UNDER LOAD,'' or an 
equivalent statement.
    One commenter questioned the requirement for using a ``special 
tool'' to separate the plug from the receptacle. The commenter 
questioned whether a special tool is necessary and whether an allen 
wrench would be considered a special tool.
    Under the A&CC's 1987 policy that initially permitted the use of an 
alternate captive locking device in lieu of a padlock, it required that 
a special tool be used to ensure that the alternate device was locked 
in place. The requirement of a special tool also prevents the removal 
of the plug from the receptacle by unauthorized personnel. In order for 
a captive locking device to provide at least the same measure of 
protection as the padlock, it was determined that a special tool be 
required to remove the plug from the receptacle. An allen wrench has 
been determined by MSHA to be an acceptable special tool.
    A commenter expressed concern about the requirement for a clearly 
visible warning tag that states ``DO NOT DISENGAGE UNDER LOAD.'' The 
commenter alleged that it may be difficult to maintain such tags. 
Another commenter indicated that the language should be modified to be 
``less prescriptive and more performance oriented.''
    Warning tags are often used in association with safety related 
equipment. They are considered an acceptable means of mitigating 
potential hazards. It is MSHA's experience that, if good maintenance 
practices are followed, warning tags can be maintained with minimal 
difficulty.
    In response to the commenter's concern about the specific warning 
tag language, MSHA has added language to Sec. Sec.  18.41(f)(2) and 
18.41(f)(3) to permit wording that is equivalent to ``DO NOT DISENGAGE 
UNDER LOAD.'' One example of equivalent wording that would be 
considered acceptable is ``DO NOT DISCONNECT UNDER LOAD.''
    A commenter stated that a warning tag should not be required on 
each connector on a machine that could have two connectors, but that 
one in the ``vicinity of the battery connectors'' should be required.
    MSHA does not agree with the commenter. A warning tag is only 
effective if it is at the location where the potential hazard exists. 
If the warning tag is provided on the battery connector, it would be 
located in the field of vision of the miner attempting to disconnect 
the plug from the receptacle. This would not be the case if the warning 
tag was provided somewhere ``in the vicinity'' of the connector.
    Another commenter stated that the final rule must ``provide and 
maintain the same level of protection to miners as required by section 
101(a)(9) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977.'' No 
specific provisions of the final rule were addressed in this comment. 
MSHA evaluated both alternate locking devices allowed by this final 
rule and determined that, as stated previously, the alternate devices 
do not reduce the protection afforded by the existing standard.

D. Section 18.41(f)(3)

    30 CFR 18.41(f)(3) is a new provision that 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 is acceptable provided that it 
secures the plug and prevents accidental separation. It further 
requires a warning tag that states: ``DO NOT DISENGAGE UNDER LOAD,'' or 
an equivalent statement.
    This section allows 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. Innovative battery connector designs not covered by 
the provisions of Sec.  18.41(f) will be evaluated for compliance under 
the provisions of existing Sec.  18.20(b).
    A commenter recommended a wording change to the final rule that 
would allow for future advancements in connector locking device 
technology. MSHA already had the necessary language in the proposed 
rule to address the commenter's concern. Section 18.41(f)(3) allows for 
``other locking devices'' that are equally effective. The A&CC 
investigators will determine equal effectiveness during evaluations of 
new designs for alternate locking devices.
    Neither of the alternatives in Sec. Sec.  18.41(f)(2) and (f)(3) 
imposes additional requirements to the 1987 MSHA policy or the 
petitions for modification granted since 1990.
    A commenter questioned the need for warning tags stating that they 
have battery-powered machines under several previously granted 
petitions for modification that did not require such warning tags. 
Under petitions granted prior to 1990, the conditions on the Proposed 
Decision and Order (PDO) emphasized training on the hazards associated 
with disconnecting the plug from the receptacle under load. This final 
rule is based on petitions granted since 1990 which all require a 
warning tag specifically stating ``Do Not Disengage Under Load.''

III. 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 will be 
superseded by this rule.
    All existing mobile battery-powered machines must be in compliance 
with this final rule as of the effective date of the rule. All machines 
incorporating alternate locking devices that were accepted under 
petitions for modification will be considered in compliance provided 
that a warning tag is attached to the connector and meets the 
requirements of this rule. This is a change from the proposed rule (68 
FR 2941) which would have allowed all equipment modified by previously 
granted petitions for modification to be in compliance with this rule. 
This change was precipitated when a commenter provided MSHA with 
several previously granted petitions for modification that allowed 
alternate locking devices but did not require warning tags. MSHA 
anticipates that this change will affect approximately 5% of the total 
granted petitions. All of these affected petitions were granted before 
1990. MSHA has determined that warning tags are an essential safety 
requirement that must be provided when alternate locking devices for 
plug and receptacle-type connectors on mobile battery-powered machines 
are used.

[[Page 37080]]

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

Introduction

    MSHA is amending 30 CFR 18.41(f), concerning plug and receptacle-
type connectors for mobile battery-powered equipment. The final rule 
revises and updates 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 final 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 final rule eliminates the need to file petitions for 
modification (PFM) to use spring-loaded locking devices to secure 
battery plugs to receptacles. It also codifies 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 final rule, and based upon its 
economic analysis, has determined that the final rule will not have an 
annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy. Therefore, it 
will not be an economically significant regulatory action pursuant to 
section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866.
    The final rule eliminates 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 will 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). 
From January 2002 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 final rule applies to all underground gassy mines. All 
underground coal mines are considered gassy mines and are affected by 
this final rule. This final rule also applies to gassy metal and 
nonmetal (M/NM) mines. Currently there are no battery-powered machines 
of the type covered by the final 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 will not be 
affected by this rule. MSHA estimates that, on average, 22 underground 
coal mines per year will be affected by this rule.

Benefits

    MSHA has qualitatively determined that the final rule, which will 
permit the use of alternate locking devices on mobile battery-powered 
equipment instead of using padlocks, will 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 will eliminate the problems associated with difficult removal 
of padlocks.

Compliance Costs

    Cost savings from the final rule will accrue to underground coal 
mines that choose to use spring-loaded locking devices on mobile 
battery-powered equipment since they will no longer have to file a PFM.
    Gross cost savings from the final 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. The companies filing the petitions 
may own more than one mine. However, cost savings associated with 
elimination of the petition process are assumed not to depend on the 
number of mines at which the petitioned modification will be 
implemented. It is projected that of the 22 companies, 19 will employ 
20 to 500 workers, and 3 will employ fewer than 20 workers. For the 3 
companies that employ fewer than 20 workers these cost savings will be 
$1,329. For the remaining 19 companies that employ 20 to 500 workers 
the cost savings will be $8,418.

Mines Employing Fewer Than 20 Workers

    The cost savings of $1,329 for companies 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 companies 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].

Net Compliance Costs

    As described below, the gross cost savings every year of $9,747 
will be slightly offset by additional costs of $808 in the first year 
the rule takes effect. The costs are influenced by the number of mines 
per petition that adopt the modification. MSHA assumes that 1.4 mines 
per petition adopt the modification. MSHA estimates that 18 
petitioners, or 25 mines (18 petitions x 1.4 mines/petition), that were 
approved to have alternate locking devices through the petition process 
but were not required to have warning tags would have to install these 
tags, costing $8 each, during the first year. The agency assumes that 
there are, on average, 1.4 mines per petition, two machines per mine, 
and two warning tags per machine (there are typically two connectors 
per machine with each requiring a warning tag). The agency estimates 
the total cost for warning tags would be $808 [(18 petitions x 1.4 
mines/petition x 2 machines/mine x 2 warning tags/machine) or 101 tags 
@ $8 each]. The agency assumes that the cost for warning tags will be 
borne by 3 mines with fewer than 20 employees and by 22 mines with 20 
to 500 employees. Thus, the cost of installing tags will be $112 for 
mines with fewer than 20 employees and $696 for mines with 20 to 500 
employees.
    Net benefits for the first year will be $8,939. Assuming that the 
first year cost for warning tags of $808 is annualized over the life of 
the alternate locking devices, the annualized costs for the warning 
tags will be $57 ($808 x .07, where .07 is the annualization factor for 
an investment with a 7 percent discount rate and an infinite life). 
Therefore, the yearly net benefits will be $9,690 ($9,747-$57).

[[Page 37081]]

    There are no substantive changes to this final rule that apply to 
any mine that chooses not to use alternate locking devices on mobile 
battery-powered equipment. Thus, these mines will not incur costs or 
generate cost savings as a result of the final 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 final rule on small businesses. 
Further, MSHA has made a determination with respect to whether or not 
the Agency can certify that the final rule will 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 
final rule will 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 will 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 final rule will 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 covered by this rulemaking with fewer than 20 employees and for 
mines covered 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 final rule 
will result only in cost savings to affected mines. Therefore, the 
final rule will 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.

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    The final amendments to 30 CFR 18.41(f) will not introduce any new 
paperwork requirements that are subject to OMB approval under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act. In addition, the third-party disclosure 
requirements for 30 CFR 18.41(f)(2) and (3) are not considered a 
``collection of information'' because the standard provides language 
for warning tags (see 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2)). Although MSHA is providing 
language to be used on the warning tag, MSHA is also providing 
operators some flexibility by allowing alternative language that meets 
the intent of the provided language.
    As a result of the final rule, the number of petitions for 
modification filed annually related to battery plugs will be reduced. 
Therefore, the final rule will result in reducing burden hours and 
costs in the ICR 1219-0065 paperwork package, which concerns the filing 
of petitions for modification.
    The final rule will 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 will be 24.3 burden hour 
savings annually and associated annual burden cost savings of $1,324. 
For the 19 mines that employ 20 to 500 workers, there will be 153.9 
burden hour 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 will 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 x 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 will 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).

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 final rule will not include any Federal mandate that 
might result in increased expenditures by State, local, or tribal 
governments, or increased expenditures by the private

[[Page 37082]]

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 final rule is not 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 
final rule will not unduly burden the Federal court system. The Agency 
wrote the final 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 final rule on children 
and has determined that it will have no adverse effects on children.

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

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

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

    MSHA certifies that the final rule will 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 
final rule and has determined that it will have no adverse effect on 
the production or price of coal. Consequently, it will 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 final 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 final rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 18

    Mine Safety and Health, Underground mining.

    Dated: June 13, 2003.
John R. Caylor,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, and under the authority of the 
Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, we are amending chapter I, 
subpart B, part 18 of title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations as 
follows:

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

0
1. The authority citation for part 18 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart B--[AMENDED]

0
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 an equivalent statement; 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,'' or an equivalent statement.
[FR Doc. 03-15700 Filed 6-20-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-43-P