90 FR 124 pgs. 28392-28395 - Drilling
Type: PRORULEVolume: 90Number: 124Pages: 28392 - 28395
Pages: 28392, 28393, 28394, 28395Docket number: [Docket No. MSHA-2025-0082]
FR document: [FR Doc. 2025-11621 Filed 6-30-25; 8:45 am]
Agency: Labor Department
Sub Agency: Mine Safety and Health Administration
Official PDF Version: PDF Version
[top]
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration
30 CFR Part 56
[Docket No. MSHA-2025-0082]
RIN 1219-AC13
Drilling
AGENCY:
Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), Department of Labor.
ACTION:
Proposed rule; request for comments.
[top]
SUMMARY:
MSHA is proposing to rescind requirements for the maintenance of drill equipment and inspection of drilling areas before starting drilling operations at surface metal and nonmetal mines. Removing these provisions would not reduce protections afforded to miners because the requirements are duplicative and covered elsewhere in 30 CFR part 56.
DATES:
Comments must be received on or before July 31, 2025.
ADDRESSES:
All submissions must include RIN 1219-AC13 or Docket No. MSHA-2025-0082. You should not include personal or proprietary information that you do not wish to disclose publicly. If you mark parts of a comment as "business confidential" information, MSHA will not post those parts of the comment. Otherwise, MSHA will post all comments without change, including any personal information provided. MSHA cautions against submitting personal information.
You may submit comments and informational materials, clearly identified by RIN 1219-AC13 or Docket No. MSHA-2025-0082, by any of the following methods:
1. Federal E-Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments for MSHA-2025-0082.
2. Email: zzMSHA-comments@dol.gov. Include "RIN 1219-AC13" in the subject line of the message.
3. Regular Mail or Hand Delivery: MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, Room C3522, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. Before visiting MSHA in person, call 202-693-9440 to make an appointment.
No telefacsimiles ("faxes") will be accepted.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jessica D. Senk, Acting Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA at 202-693-9440 (voice). This is not a toll-free number.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
MSHA is proposing to remove existing provisions from title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations (30 CFR) part 56. Existing §?56.7002 requires mine operators to correct any safety related equipment defects on drilling equipment before using the equipment in surface metal and nonmetal mines. Existing §?56.7003 requires that a drilling area is inspected for hazards before drilling operations begin in surface metal and nonmetal mines. MSHA is proposing to remove and reserve §§?56.7002 and 56.7003. Removing these provisions would not reduce protections afforded to miners.
II. Discussion
In this proposed rule, MSHA is removing the existing provisions in §§?56.7002 and 56.7003. Section 56.7002 requires mine operators to correct any safety related equipment defects on drilling equipment before using the equipment in surface metal and nonmetal mines. Section 56.7003 currently requires that a drilling area is inspected for hazards before drilling operations begin in surface metal and nonmetal mines. The proposed removal of §§?56.7002 and 56.7003 would not reduce protection to miners because they are duplicative requirements already addressed §§?56.14100 and 56.18002. This proposed action reflects MSHA's experience and ongoing review of existing regulations to ensure they remain necessary, effective, and aligned with current technologies and mining practices.
MSHA seeks comment on any aspects of this proposed rule.
III. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 and 13563
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, "Regulatory Planning and Review" 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits; (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.
E.O. 13563, "Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review" 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), requires agencies to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, reduce uncertainty, and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
Under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, a "significant regulatory action" is a regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way he economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities (also referred to as economically significant);
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the E.O.
Under section 6(a) of E.O. 12866, the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determines whether a regulatory action is significant and whether Agencies are required to submit the regulatory action to OIRA for review. Removing the provisions concerning the maintenance of drill equipment and inspection of drilling areas before starting drilling operations would not impose new compliance cost to surface metal and nonmetal mine operators or reduce the protection afforded to miners. This proposed rule is determined to not constitute a "significant regulatory action" because it does not meet any of the four "significant regulatory action" criteria under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this proposed rule was not submitted to OIRA for review under E.O. 12866.
[top] No alternatives are considered for this proposed deregulatory action.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, requires preparation of an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA defines small entities to include small businesses, small organizations, including not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
MSHA reviewed this proposed rule under the provisions of the RFA, which eliminates burdensome regulations. Therefore, MSHA initially concludes that the impacts of the proposed rule would not have a "significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities," and that the preparation of an IRFA is not warranted. MSHA will transmit this certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) provides for the Federal Government's collection, use, and dissemination of information. The goals of the Paperwork Reduction Act include minimizing paperwork and reporting burdens and ensuring the maximum possible utility from the information that is collected under 5 CFR part 1320. The Paperwork Reduction Act requires Federal agencies to obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before requesting or requiring "a collection of information" from the public.
This proposed rule imposes no new information collection or record-keeping requirements. Accordingly, OMB clearance is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
D. Review Under Executive Order 13132
E.O. 13132, "Federalism" 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999), imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. The E.O. requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The E.O. also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.
MSHA has examined this proposed rescission and has determined that it would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
E. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, "Civil Justice Reform" 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. Regarding the review required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General.
Section 3(c) of E.O. 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. MSHA has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this proposed rescission meets the relevant standards of E.O. 12988.
F. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)). The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a "significant intergovernmental mandate," and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect them.
MSHA examined this proposed rescission according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that the rescission does not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate, nor is it expected to require expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. As a result, the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.
G. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), requires each Federal agency to consider the environmental effects of regulatory actions and to prepare an environmental impact statement on Agency actions that would significantly affect the quality of the environment; unless the action is considered categorically excluded under 29 CFR 11.10. MSHA has reviewed the proposed rule in accordance with NEPA requirements and the Department of Labor's NEPA procedures (29 CFR part 11). As a result of this review, MSHA has determined that this proposed rule would not impact air, water, or soil quality, plant or animal life, the use of land or other aspects of the human environment. Therefore, MSHA has not conducted an environmental assessment nor provided an environmental impact statement.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999
[top] Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This proposed rule would not have any
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to E.O. 12630, "Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights" 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), MSHA has determined that this proposed rule would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under information quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002). MSHA has reviewed this proposed rule under the OMB guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13175
E.O. 13175, "Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments" 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000), requires agencies to consult with tribal officials when developing policies that may have "tribal implications." This proposed rule does not have "tribal implications" because it will not "have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes." Accordingly, under E.O. 13175, no further Agency action or analysis is required.
L. Review Under Executive Order 13211
E.O. 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires agencies to publish a statement of energy effects when a rule has a significant energy action that adversely affects energy supply, distribution, or use. MSHA has reviewed this proposed rule for its energy effects. For the energy analysis, this proposed rule will not exceed the relevant criteria for adverse impact.
M. Review Under Additional Executive Orders and Presidential Memoranda
MSHA has examined this rescission and has determined that it is consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O. 14154, "Unleashing American Energy" 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025); E.O. 14192, "Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation" 90 FR 9065 (Feb. 6, 2025); and the Presidential Memorandum, "Delivering Emergency Price Relief for American Families and Defeating the Cost-of-Living Crisis" 90 FR 8245 (Jan. 28, 2025). This proposed rule is expected to be an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 56
Chemicals, Electric power, Explosives, Fire prevention, Hazardous substances, Metals, Mines, Mine safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surface mining.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, and under the authority of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, as amended by the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006, MSHA proposes to amend chapter I of title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
SUBCHAPTER K-METAL AND NONMETAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
PART 56-SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS-SURFACE METAL AND NONMETAL MINES
1. The authority citation for part 56 continues to read as follows:
Authority:
30 U.S.C. 811.
Subpart F-Drilling and Rotary Jet Piercing
§?56.7002 [Removed and Reserved]
2. Remove and reserve §?56.7002.
§?56.7003 [Removed and Reserved]
3. Remove and reserve §?56.7003.
James P. McHugh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Mine Safety and Health Administration.
[FR Doc. 2025-11621 Filed 6-30-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4520-43-P