[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 62 (Friday, March 31, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16589-16591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8018]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mine Safety and Health Administration

30 CFR Parts 14, 18, and 75

RIN 1219-AA92


Requirements for Approval of Flame-Resistant Conveyor Belts

AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of the record; request for public 
comment and notice of public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is reopening 
the rulemaking record on proposed revisions to requirements for 
approval of flame-resistant conveyor belts for use in underground 
mines. Subsequent to the record closing on the conveyor belt proposal, 
MSHA published another proposed rule which would allow independent 
laboratories to test and evaluate certain products MSHA approves for 
use in underground mines. To allow comment on the applicability of the 
independent laboratory proposal to conveyor belt testing, submission of 
new relevant data, or updating of comments previously submitted, the 
Agency is reopening the rulemaking record on the conveyor belt proposal 
and scheduling a public hearing.

DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before April 21, 1995.
    The public hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 2, 1995, beginning 
at 9 a.m. All written requests to make oral presentations for the 
record should be submitted at least 5 days prior to the hearing date. 
Requests may also be made by calling the MSHA Office of Standards at 
703-235-1910.
    The public record for the rulemaking will close on June 2, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments and requests to make oral 
presentations to MSHA; Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances; 
4015 Wilson Boulevard, Room 631; Arlington, Virginia 22203. Commenters 
are encouraged to submit comments on a computer disk along with a hard 
copy.
    The location and address for the public hearing is: Holiday Inn 
Meadowlands, 340 Racetrack Road, Washington, PA 15301. The Holiday Inn 
is adjacent to the Meadows Racetrack in Meadowlands approximately 5 
miles north of Washington, PA.

[[Page 16590]] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia W. Silvey, 
Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 703-235-
1910.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On December 24, 1992, MSHA published a proposed rule to implement 
new procedures and requirements for testing and approval of flame-
resistant conveyor belts and requirements for their use in underground 
coal mines (57 FR 61524). The proposed revision would replace the 
existing flame test for acceptance of flame-resistant belts specified 
in Agency regulations. Because of the fire hazards in underground coal 
mines, existing MSHA safety standards require that conveyor belts be 
flame-resistant in accordance with specifications of the Secretary and 
pass the flame test for conveyor belting specified in 30 CFR 18.65. The 
comment period closed on March 26, 1993. Several commenters requested 
that the Agency hold public hearings.
    On November 30, 1994, the Agency proposed a new part 6 to 30 CFR 
which would allow independent testing laboratories to test and evaluate 
certain mining products for use in underground mines, as well as allow 
the use of equivalent testing and evaluation requirements (59 FR 
61376). Under the proposal, an independent laboratory recognized by the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) as a nationally 
recognized testing laboratory would conduct product testing and 
evaluation currently done by MSHA according to MSHA's testing and 
evaluation requirements. Upon request by an applicant, the new proposal 
would also enable the Agency to approve products based upon testing and 
evaluation requirements other than MSHA's, provided that the 
alternative requirements are equivalent to the Agency's and provide at 
least the same measure of protection to miners. Several commenters on 
the independent laboratory testing proposal questioned how it would 
relate to the conveyor belt proposal. Since publication of the 
independent laboratory testing proposal occurred after the close of the 
conveyor belt record, MSHA is reopening the conveyor belt record for a 
limited period of time prior to holding a hearing. This will allow all 
parties to comment on the applicability of the independent laboratory 
proposal to conveyor belt testing, to submit new relevant data, or to 
update comments previously submitted.
    The purpose of the public hearing is to receive relevant comment 
and to answer questions concerning the proposal. The hearing will be 
conducted in an informal manner by a panel of MSHA officials. Although 
formal rules of evidence will not apply, the presiding official may 
exercise discretion in excluding irrelevant or unduly repetitious 
material and questions. The order of appearance will be determined by 
the Agency prior to the hearing, and any unallotted time will be made 
available to persons making late requests.
    The hearing will begin with an opening statement from MSHA. The 
public will then be given the opportunity to make oral presentations. 
The hearing panel will be available to answer relevant questions during 
the presentations. At the discretion of the presiding official, 
speakers may be limited to a maximum of 20 minutes for their 
presentations. At the end of the hearing, time will be made available 
for rebuttal statements. Verbatim transcripts of the proceedings will 
be taken and made part of the rulemaking record, and will be made 
available for review by the public.
    At the time of the hearing, MSHA will also accept written comments 
and appropriate data from any party, including those not presenting 
oral statements. Written comments and data will be included in the 
rulemaking record. The record will remain open until June 5, 1995, to 
allow for the submission of any post-hearing comments.

II. Issues

    Although commenters questioned a number of provisions contained in 
the proposal, some portions of the rule raised issues of particular 
concern and MSHA will address the following issues at the public 
hearing and specifically solicits comments, data, and pertinent 
information on them, in addition to any other aspect of the proposed 
rule.

A. Proposed Test

    The repeatability and reproducibility of the proposed conveyor belt 
test was questioned by several commenters. The Agency considers 
``repeatability'' to mean the degree of duplication of test results for 
a sample using a single apparatus in a specific laboratory or location. 
``Reproducibility'' is considered by MSHA to mean the degree of 
duplication of test results for a sample using the same type of 
apparatus in a multitude of laboratories or locations. More than 700 
individual tests have been conducted by MSHA and serve as a data base 
to address this issue. MSHA will make available its data on 
repeatability of the proposed test. In addition, MSHA requests any 
information or data regarding repeatability and reproducibility, 
particularly from those parties and individuals who have installed the 
proposed test apparatus and have used the proposed test in evaluation 
of conveyor belts.
    Several commenters indicated that parameters such as humidity, 
temperature, atmospheric pressure, and airflow changes affect the 
proposed test results. In the development of the proposed test, factors 
such as airflow and temperature were considered. The proposal specifies 
controlling the temperature of the roof of the test apparatus and the 
temperature of the air entering the test chamber. Also, the proposal 
specifies control of the airflow through the apparatus to 200 plus or 
minus 20 ft/min (61 plus or minus 6 m/min). In addition, a variety of 
other parameters, such as different airflows, different lengths and 
widths of test samples, and variations in the duration of the ignition 
time, were evaluated during development of the proposed test. This 
information was used in designing the proposed test and establishing 
its comparison with the large-scale fire test results. MSHA requests 
specific information or data on the experience that manufacturers and 
other parties may have with respect to the effect of parameters on the 
proposed test, such as temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, and 
airflow changes.
    In its comments on the proposed rule, Factory Mutual, Norwood, MA, 
suggested that MSHA consider a conveyor belt test developed by its 
personnel from which a ``fire propagation index'' could be determined. 
Factory Mutual indicated that its test correlated with large-scale 
conveyor belt fire tests conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Mines in 
conjunction with MSHA. MSHA requests information from Factory Mutual 
and other organizations and individuals that have used or have obtained 
data from the Factory Mutual test or any other test that compares to 
the proposed test.

B. Pollution Control

    Another issue on which commenters expressed concern was the impact 
the proposed test may have on the environment and what pollution 
controls may be necessary as a result of the emissions from the testing 
of conveyor belts. MSHA is interested in hearing from manufacturers who 
have installed the proposed conveyor belt test apparatus and performed 
testing of [[Page 16591]] conveyor belts as to the method of pollution 
control that is used or is necessary to perform testing using the 
proposed test.

C. Combustion Toxicity

    Some commenters indicated that conveyor belts passing the proposed 
tests would present more of a toxic hazard than conveyor belts meeting 
the present MSHA acceptance test. MSHA requests any information or data 
from manufacturers and other parties on the comparison or assessment of 
the combustion toxicity of conveyor belts meeting the present 
acceptance test and belts meeting the proposed test.

D. Quality Assurance

    Commenters also questioned the proposal regarding the quality 
assurance (control) program for maintaining conveyor belt as approved. 
One commenter suggested that inspection of ingredients alone could not 
ensure that conveyor belting is manufactured as approved, suggesting 
that a flame test is needed for this assurance. MSHA requests 
information on the current practices manufacturers use in their quality 
control programs to maintain a product as approved. MSHA is 
particularly interested in whether manufacturers flame test belts using 
the MSHA acceptance test indicated in 30 CFR 18.65, inspect or control 
ingredients, or perform a combination of both.

E. Cost Data

    Commenters provided a range of data on the financial impact of the 
proposed rule, which included costs of belting passing the proposed 
flame test (``new'' belt), total dollar amount of the conveyor belt 
market, and belt service life information. MSHA solicits comments and 
data on the economic impact to all belt manufacturers and all 
underground coal mines, including small manufacturers and small mine 
operators. In particular, MSHA requests information for both rubber and 
PVC types of conveyor belt on: (1) the quantity of belt (in feet or 
meters) currently in use that would pass the proposed test; (2) the 
total quantity (in feet or meters) and dollar amount of the market for 
conveyor belt used in underground coal mines; (3) the cost of belt that 
will pass the proposed flame test (``new'' belt) versus belt that 
passes the current MSHA flame test (``old'' belt); (4) whether costs of 
the ``new'' belt will decline as production increases and by how much; 
and (5) the life and warranty of ``new'' belt versus ``old'' belt.
    Some manufacturers and other parties have installed the proposed 
MSHA test apparatus to conduct research and testing on samples of 
conveyor belts. MSHA also requests information from interested parties 
on the research and development costs for conveyor belt meeting the new 
test.

    Dated: March 27, 1995.
J. Davitt McAteer,
Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 95-8018 Filed 3-30-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-43-P