[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 17 (Monday, January 27, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3936-3968]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-1307]



[[Page 3935]]

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

Part II





Department of Labor





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



Mine Safety and Health Administration



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



30 CFR Part 75



Underground Coal Mine Ventilation--Safety Standards for the Use of a 
Belt Entry as an Intake Air Course To Ventilate Working Sections and 
Areas Where Mechanized Mining Equipment Is Being Installed or Removed; 
Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 17 / Monday, January 27, 2003 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 3936]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mine Safety and Health Administration

30 CFR Part 75

RIN 1219-AA76


Underground Coal Mine Ventilation--Safety Standards for the Use 
of a Belt Entry as an Intake Air Course To Ventilate Working Sections 
and Areas Where Mechanized Mining Equipment Is Being Installed or 
Removed

AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of public hearings; notice of close of 
record.

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

SUMMARY: The proposed rule would allow the use of intake air passing 
through belt air courses (belt air) to ventilate working sections and 
areas where mechanized mining equipment is being installed or removed 
in underground coal mines. The use of belt air, under the conditions 
set forth in the proposed rule, would maintain the level of safety in 
underground mines while implementing advances in mining technology. 
This proposed rule would amend the existing safety standards for 
ventilation of underground coal mines. The proposed rule would also 
revise other standards.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 28, 2003. Submit 
written comments on the information collection requirements by March 
28, 2003.
    The public hearing dates and locations are listed in the Public 
Hearings section below under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. If individuals 
or organizations wish to make an oral presentation for the record, we 
ask that you submit your request at least 5 days prior to the hearing 
dates.
    The post-hearing comment period will close 30 days after the last 
public hearing on June 30, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Comments: 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.

Information Collection Requirements

    Send written comments on the information collection requirements to 
both the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and MSHA as follows:
    (1) To OMB: By mail addressed to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive 
Office Building, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attn: Desk 
Officer for MSHA; and
    (2) To MSHA: Comments must be clearly identified as comments on the 
information collection requirements 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marvin W. Nichols, 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.
    You may obtain copies of the proposed rule and the Preliminary 
Regulatory Economic Analysis (PREA) in alternative formats by calling 
this number. The alternative formats available are either a large print 
version of these documents or electronic files that can be sent to you 
either on a computer disk or an attachment to an e-mail. The documents 
also are available on the Internet at http://www.msha.gov/REGSINFO.HTM. 
We intend to place the public comments on these documents on our 
website shortly after we receive them.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Hearings

    The public hearings will begin at 9 a.m. and end after the last 
scheduled speaker speaks (in any event not later than 5 p.m.) on the 
following dates at the locations indicated:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Date                                Location                             Phone
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 29, 2003...........................  Holiday Inn-Birmingham Airport,  (205) 591-6900
                                            5000 10th Avenue North,
                                            Birmingham, AL 35212.
May 1, 2003..............................  Holiday Inn Lexington-North,     (859) 233-0512
                                            1950 Newton Pike, Lexington,
                                            KY 40305.
May 13, 2003.............................  Country Inn & Suites By          (304) 925-4300
                                            Carlson, 105 Alex Lane,
                                            Charleston, WV 25304.
May 15, 2003.............................  Holiday Inn at the Meadows, 340  (724) 222-6200
                                            Racetrack Road, Washington, PA
                                            15301.
May 29, 2003.............................  Holiday Inn Grand Junction, 755  (970) 243-6790
                                            Horizon Drive, Grand Junction,
                                            CO 81506.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The hearings will begin with an opening statement from MSHA, 
followed by an opportunity for members of the public to make oral 
presentations. You do not have to make a written request to speak. 
Speakers will speak in the order that they sign in. Any unallotted time 
will be made available for persons making same-day requests. At the 
discretion of the presiding official, the time allocated to speakers 
for their presentation may be limited. Speakers and other attendees may 
also present information to the MSHA panel for inclusion in the 
rulemaking record.
    The hearings will be conducted in an informal manner. The hearing 
panel may ask questions of speakers. Although formal rules of evidence 
or cross examination will not apply, the presiding official may 
exercise discretion to ensure the orderly progress of the hearing and 
may exclude irrelevant or unduly repetitious material and questions.
    A verbatim transcript of the proceedings will be prepared and made 
a part of the rulemaking record. Copies of the transcript will be 
available to the public. The transcript will also be available on 
MSHA's Home Page at http://www.msha.gov at http://www.msha.gov, under 
Statutory and Regulatory Information.
    MSHA will accept post-hearing written comments and other 
appropriate data for the record from any interested party, including 
those not presenting oral statements. Written comments will be included 
in the rulemaking record.

II. Background

A. Events Leading to Agency Action

    We are proposing to amend 30 CFR 75.301, 75.371, 75.372, and 75.380 
of our existing safety standards for underground coal mines. The 
proposed rule also would revise existing Sec. Sec.  75.350, 75.351, and 
75.352. These modifications are proposed in accordance with Sec.  101 
of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act), 30 U.S.C. 
811 and 957.
    MSHA published a proposed rule to revise the safety standards for 
ventilation of underground coal mines

[[Page 3937]]

in the Federal Register on January 27, 1988 (53 FR 2382). Included in 
that proposed rule were provisions to allow air coursed through the 
belt entry(ies) to ventilate working places. That proposed rule would 
have required mine operators to install carbon monoxide (CO) sensors in 
the belt entry.
    In response to public comments submitted to the Agency on the 
January 27, 1988 proposed rule, we held six public hearings in June 
1988 with the rulemaking record closing in September 1988. Based on 
public comments received during this period, MSHA's Assistant Secretary 
called for a thorough review of safety factors associated with the use 
of air in the belt entry in the working places in March 1989. MSHA 
completed this review and announced in an August 25, 1989 Notice in the 
Federal Register (54 FR 35356), the availability of the Belt Entry 
Ventilation Review (BEVR) Report. The report concludes that'' * * * 
directing belt entry air to the face can be at least as safe as other 
ventilation methods provided carbon monoxide monitors or smoke 
detectors are installed in the belt entry.''
    After the BEVR report was issued, we reopened the ventilation 
rulemaking record and held a seventh public hearing in April 1990, to 
receive public comment on issues raised in the report. The reopened 
ventilation rulemaking record for the 1988 proposed rule closed in May 
1990.
    Comments received during and after the seventh public hearing 
expressed widely divergent views on the recommendations of the BEVR 
Committee. Commenters representing industry and academia stated, for 
the most part, that the use of air in the belt entry provides positive 
ventilation and reduces the possibility of a methane build-up in the 
belt entry. Commenters from labor, on the other hand, maintained that 
the use of air in the belt entry reduces safety due to increased fire 
hazards and greater dust levels.
    Due to these divergent views, when the ventilation rule for 
underground coal mines was finalized in 1992, it did not include 
provisions that would have allowed mine operators to use belt air to 
provide additional intake air to working sections. MSHA's existing 
standards do not allow this practice except as approved on a mine-
specific basis through the petition for modification process (30 CFR 
part 44) or when approved by the MSHA district manager for mines opened 
prior to March 30, 1970. The final ventilation rule retained the 
requirements of the existing 30 CFR 75.326.
    MSHA decided that the use of air in the belt air course (belt air) 
to ventilate working places should continue as an independent 
rulemaking effort. As part of this effort, the Secretary of Labor 
appointed an Advisory Committee in January 1992 and charged it to make 
recommendations concerning the conditions under which air in the belt 
entry could be safely used in the face areas of underground coal mines. 
This committee was designated as the Department of Labor's Advisory 
Committee on the Use of Air in the Belt Entry to Ventilate the 
Production (Face) Areas of Underground Coal Mines and Related 
Provisions (Advisory Committee). The Advisory Committee held six public 
meetings over a six-month period. After reviewing an extensive amount 
of material, the Advisory Committee concluded that air in the belt 
entry could be safely used to ventilate working places in underground 
coal mines, provided certain precautions were taken.
    The Advisory Committee made twelve recommendations to support this 
conclusion. The Advisory Committee submitted its report to the 
Secretary of Labor in November 1992. We published a December 2, 1992 
Notice (57 FR 57078) in the Federal Register announcing the 
availability of the Advisory Committee's final report and stated that 
we would review its recommendations.
    In the preamble of the rule proposed today, we discuss the 
recommendations of the BEVR Report and the Advisory Committee. The 
proposed rule also incorporates MSHA experience with petitions for 
modification under Sec.  101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health 
Act of 1977 (Mine Act).
    In instances where we have not followed a recommendation made in 
the BEVR or Advisory Committee Reports, we either have determined 
existing standards are adequate to address the issue raised in the 
recommendation or believe that mining technology has advanced making 
the recommendation moot. In either case, we provide an explanation in 
this preamble.

B. Agency Experience

    Since the early 1970's, mine operators have used Atmospheric 
Monitoring Systems (AMSs) to monitor certain aspects of the mine 
atmosphere. These systems typically can measure environmental 
parameters related to mine ventilation, air quality, and fire 
detection. An AMS, equipped with the proper sensors, can measure 
concentrations of combustible and toxic gases, oxygen levels, air 
velocity, and products of combustion, such as carbon monoxide (CO) or 
smoke. Existing Sec.  75.351 (Atmospheric monitoring system), Sec.  
75.323 (Actions for excessive methane), Sec.  75.340 (Underground 
electrical installations), and Sec.  75.362 (On-shift examination) 
incorporated this technology into underground coal mine safety 
standards. This technology is the basis for granting petitions for 
modification to Sec.  75.350 (Air courses and belt haulage entries). It 
allows close monitoring of the mine atmosphere when belt air is coursed 
to working places.
    As AMSs have become more sophisticated, they have employed computer 
technology to transmit environmental measurements from remote locations 
to attended mine locations. These systems generate alarms, store and 
catalog data, and provide reports. Many computer-based monitoring 
systems have other capabilities besides atmospheric monitoring. Some 
systems monitor equipment status and, sometimes, provide control 
signals as well. Such applications improve surveillance of production 
and haulage, equipment maintenance, and other related management 
information.
    During the last 15 years, MSHA has evaluated, through the petition 
for modification process, the safe use of belt air as intake air. This 
process permits a mine operator to petition that the application of 30 
CFR Sec.  75.350 be modified at a particular mine.
    MSHA has granted approximately 90 petitions for modification to use 
belt air to ventilate working sections. MSHA grants such a petition 
when it determines that a mine operator has an alternative method which 
provides the same measure of safety protection as the existing 
standard, or when the existing standard would result in diminished 
safety protection to miners.
    Only after a thorough on-site investigation verifying that the use 
of belt air is at least as safe as the existing safety standard does 
the Agency grant each petition. In the Agency's evaluation of the use 
of belt air, MSHA concluded that belt air can be safely used, provided 
that certain conditions are met. Specifically, the Agency found that 
the safety concerns associated with belt air use are sufficiently 
addressed by the proper installation, operation, examination, and 
maintenance of AMSs as part of a comprehensive safety program that 
contains other requirements. Petitions for modification of 30 CFR 
75.350 (belt air petitions) contain the requirement that a mine 
operator install an AMS to monitor the mine atmosphere.

[[Page 3938]]

    Mine operators filing a petition for modification under Sec.  
75.350 generally request the use of belt air to ventilate active 
working places dependent upon the installation of an AMS with CO 
sensors for early-warning fire detection in the belt entry. AMSs are 
also currently used for other reasons. Some mine operators petitioned 
the Agency under Section 101(c) of the Mine Act to install an AMS with 
CO sensors to comply with the requirements of Sec.  75.1103 (Automatic 
fire warning devices). Existing regulations have also used an AMS as an 
optional choice for specific functions, such as monitoring for methane, 
CO, and smoke.
    Mandated petition requirements and existing regulations have placed 
a greater reliance on AMSs' performance. Typically, an AMS is composed 
of a central control station that includes a computer with data 
storage, software, a display, a printer, etc.; a communication network 
or telemetry system that includes signal conditioning equipment, 
multiplexers, drivers, repeaters, data line, etc.; and transducers or 
sensors that measure the value of a given physical parameter.
    The Advisory Committee recommended that MSHA should move forward 
with the development and promulgation of approval schedules for early-
warning fire detection systems, such as AMSs. In lieu of adopting this 
recommendation, we propose to require that components of the system's 
sensors be listed or certified by a nationally recognized testing 
laboratory (NRTL) or approved by the Secretary. The standards used by 
the NRTLs to list or certify the sensors are American National 
Standards.
    As specified in Sec.  75.1103-2(a), MSHA currently requires that 
components of automatic fire sensors in belt entries be listed or 
certified by a NRTL or approved by the Secretary. We propose to expand 
this listing or certification requirement to include methane sensors. 
We also propose that the components can be approved by the Secretary, 
allowing MSHA to accept new or unique technology that has not yet been 
approved by a NRTL. This would help assure that new technology can be 
introduced into mining without delay. The current program for 
Evaluation of Mine-Wide Monitoring Systems and Barrier and Sensor 
Classifications described in MSHA's Program Circular PC-4003-0 would 
remain in effect. A copy of this program circular can be obtained from 
the Approval and Certification Center in Triadelphia, West Virginia.
    Currently, an AMS must comply with the 1967 National Fire Alarm 
Code (Sec.  75.1103-2; Automatic fire sensors approved components; 
installation requirements). In this proposed rule, MSHA is soliciting 
comments on whether AMS components and the aforementioned automatic 
fire sensor systems should comply with appropriate sections of the 1999 
National Fire Alarm Code. The National Fire Alarm Code is also an 
American National Standard.
Reportable Belt Entry Fires
    In developing this proposed rule, MSHA reviewed the history of 
reportable belt entry fires to evaluate the effectiveness of various 
types of detection methods and the causes of these fires. Section 
50.2(h)(6) of 30 CFR requires that mine operators report mine fires 
that are not extinguished within 30 minutes of their discovery. We are 
aware that fires of less than 30 minutes in duration occur. Where 
documentation, such as official reports or memoranda, could be found 
about these short-duration fires, we also considered them in developing 
this proposed rule. Often slightly different circumstances in these 
short duration fires would have resulted in a potentially serious 
reportable fire.
    Since 1970, 75 reportable mine fires have occurred in belt entries. 
Seventeen of these occurred in mines where belt air ventilated working 
places (23%). A review of the accident reports for these 17 fires 
showed that nine occurred in mines that used only an AMS with CO 
sensors for fire detection; two occurred in mines that used only point-
type heat sensors (PTHS) for fire detection; and two occurred in mines 
using both an AMS with CO sensors and PTHS for fire detection. Reports 
of the remaining five fires did not state the type of fire detection 
system in use. However, based on the dates of the fires (1972--1974) 
and the fact that CO systems were not in use before 1975, four of these 
mines probably used PTHS for fire detection.
    The first reportable belt entry fire in a mine equipped with an AMS 
occurred in 1983 at the Jim Walters No. 7 Mine. Since then, we have 
investigated 16 belt entry fires in AMS equipped mines (10 in mines 
that used air in the belt air course to ventilate working places and 6 
in mines that did not). Two of these mines had both AMS and PTHS 
installed in the belt entry. Of the 16 fires occurring in belt entries 
equipped with an AMS, the AMS detected all of the fires. Instances 
occurred when the AMS was not properly utilized or responded to by mine 
personnel (e.g., alarms were disconnected or were ignored). Sometimes, 
although the AMS functioned as intended and provided notification of a 
fire, the fire was detected by sight or smell before detection by the 
AMS.
    The first reportable belt entry fire detected with a PTHS system 
occurred in 1980 at the Peabody No. 10 Mine. From 1970 to date, 43 
fires occurred in belt entries of mines equipped with PTHS. This 
includes the two mines with both AMS and PTHS. Of the 43 fires 
occurring in belt entries equipped with PTHS, the PTHS reportedly 
detected only six fires. Table 1 lists the reportable belt entry fires 
included in this analysis.

                                                Table 1.--Reportable Conveyor Belt Entry Fires, 1970-2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Fire detected by . .                           Belt air in working
          Mine name           Date         Sensor type                 .              Alert & alarm (PPM)           place               Belt running
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1  Geneva...............    1/20/70  No Record............  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  No...................  Yes
 2  Kermit No 1..........     8/7/70  No Record............  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  No...................  No
 3  Rainbow No 7.........   10/25/70  No Record............  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  No...................  No
 4  Castlegate No 4......   12/14/70  No Record............  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  No...................  No
 5  Jones Fork...........   12/27/70  No Record............  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  No...................  No
 6  Kenilworth...........    7/13/71  No Record............  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  No...................  No
 7  Pioneer..............   12/26/72  No Record............  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  Yes..................  No
 8  Colver...............    8/22/73  No Record............  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  Yes..................  Yes
 9  Bethlehem, No 31.....   10/29/73  No Record............  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  Yes..................  No
10  Fedscreek, No 2......   11/20/73  PTHS.................  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  No...................  No
11  Wentz No 11..........    6/29/74  No Record............  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  Yes..................  No
12  Jewell Ridge No 1....     4/8/76  PTHS.................  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  Yes..................  No
13  Alpine...............    12/9/76  PTHS.................  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  No...................  No

[[Page 3939]]

 
14  FMV No 1.............   12/10/76  PTHS.................  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  No...................  No Record
15  Kopperston No 1......    3/20/77  PTHS.................  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  No...................  No Record
16  Florence No 1........    7/13/77  PTHS.................  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  No...................  No
17  Island Creek No 9E...    9/23/77   PTHS................  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  No...................  No
18  Camp No 1............    3/14/79  PTHS.................  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  No...................  No
19  Orient No 4..........   11/22/79  PTHS.................  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  No...................  No
20  Peabody No 10........    1/12/80  PTHS.................  PTHS.................  ......................  No...................  No
21  Raccoon No 3.........     9/7/80  PTHS.................  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  No...................  Yes
22  Lancashire, No 24-D..    11/1/80  PTHS.................  PTHS.................  ......................  No...................  No Record
23  Bull Creek No 4......   12/15/80  PTHS.................  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  No...................  Yes
24  Central Appalachian      11/7/81  PTHS.................  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  No...................  No
     No 4.
25  Beatrice.............   11/25/81  PTHS.................  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  Yes..................  No Record
26  Star North...........   12/16/81  No Record............  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  No...................  No Record
27  D. O. & W............     2/3/82  PTHS.................  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  No...................  No
28  Newfield.............     3/4/82  PTHS.................  PTHS.................  ......................  No...................  No
29  Cannelton No 8.......    3/26/82  PTHS.................  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  No...................  No
30  V. P. No 2...........    5/21/82  No Record............  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  No...................  No
31  JWR No 7.............    3/15/83  CO Sensor............  AMS..................  10 & 15...............  Yes..................  No Record
32  Emerald No 1.........   12/19/83  PTHS.................  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  No...................  Yes
33  Beehive..............   12/29/83  NONE.................  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  No...................  No
34  Gateway..............    1/18/84  PTHS.................  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  No...................  No
35  Camp No 2............    1/18/84  No Record............  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  No...................  No
36  Duncan No 3..........    4/16/84  PTHS.................  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  No...................  No
37  Allied No 2..........     8/8/84  PTHS.................  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  No...................  No Record
38  Shawnee..............    1/30/85  PTHS.................  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  No...................  No
39  JWR No 7.............    3/26/85  CO Sensor............  AMS..................  10 & 15...............  Yes..................  No Record
40  JWR No 4.............     5/4/85  CO Sensor............  AMS..................  10 & 15...............  Yes..................  No Record
41  Fountain Bay No 1....     5/6/85  PTHS.................  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  No...................  No Record
42  Pyro No 9, Wheatcroft    8/18/85  PTHS.................  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  No...................  No Record
43  Apache No 2..........    8/23/85  PTHS.................  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  No...................  No Record
44  Shoemaker............     1/4/86  PTHS.................  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  No...................  No Record
45  TLC No 1.............    6/23/86  No Record............  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  No...................  No Record
46  Old Ben 21...........    11/6/86  PTHS.................  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  No...................  No Record
47  Florence No 1........   11/27/86  PTHS.................  PTHS.................  ......................  No...................  No
48  Beckley..............     4/1/87  CO Sensor............  Sight and/or Smell &   ......................  Yes..................  No
                                                              AMS.
49  Florence No 1........   10/20/87  PTHS.................  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  No...................  No
50  Blazing Saddles No 1.    12/9/87  PTHS.................  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  No...................  Yes
51  Marianna No 58.......     3/7/88  CO Sensor & PTHS.....  ANS & Sight and/or     UNK...................  Yes..................  Yes
                                                              Smell.
52  Florence No 1........     5/9/88  PTHS.................  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  No...................  No
53  Sinclair Slope UG No     5/13/88  PTHS.................  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  No...................  No Record
     2.
54  Kopperston No 2......    8/20/88  PTHS.................  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  No...................  No
55  Brent No 1...........   11/15/88  PTHS.................  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  No...................  No Record
56  Eighty Four Complex..    7/24/89  CO Sensor............  AMS..................  7 & 10................  Yes..................  No Record
57  Baldwin..............     2/8/90  PTHS.................  PTHS.................  ......................  No...................  No Record
58  Florence No 2........    4/11/90  PTHS.................  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  No...................  No Record
59  Greenwich No 2.......    6/18/90  PTHS.................  Sight................  ......................  UNK..................  .....................
60  Sunnyhill No 9 South.     7/5/90  PTHS.................  PTHS.................  ......................  No...................  No
61  McElroy..............     1/2/92  No Record............  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  No...................  Yes
62  Dilworth.............    1/22/92  CO Sensor & PTHS.....  AMS..................  10 & 15...............  Yes..................  No
63  Jen No 30............     3/9/92  PTHS.................  Sight and/or Smell...  ......................  No...................  No
64  Montcoal No 7........     5/9/92  CO Sensor............  AMS & Sight and/or     10 & 15...............  No...................  Yes
                                                              Smell.
65  Splashdam............   10/11/92  CO Sensor............  AMS & Sight and/or     UNK...................  Yes..................  Yes
                                                              Smell.
66  Bullitt..............     3/9/94  CO Sensor............  AMS..................  4 & 8.................  Yes..................  No
67  Eagle Valley.........   11/28/94  CO Sensor............  AMS..................  10 & 15...............  No...................  Yes
68  Ohio No 11...........     5/5/95  CO Sensor............  AMS..................  10 & 15...............  No...................  Yes
69  Old Ben 26...........     1/1/97  CO Sensor............  AMS & Sight and/or     10 & 15...............  No...................  No
                                                              Smell.
70  Roadside North Portal     1/3/98  CO Sensor............  AMS..................  10 & 15...............  Yes..................  No
71  Zeigler No 11........    3/18/98  PTHS.................  Sight................  ......................  No...................  Yes
72  Shoal Creek..........     9/3/99  CO Sensor............  AMS..................  5 & 10................  Yes..................  Yes
73  Paramount No 21......     3/7/00  PTHS.................  Sight................  ......................  No...................  .....................
74  Darmac No 3..........    1/30/02  PTHS.................  Sight................  ......................  No...................  .....................
75  Blue Diamond No 77...    4/17/02  CO Sensor............  AMS..................  5 & 10................  No...................  No
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 AMS--Atmospheric Monitoring System.
 CO--Carbon Monoxide.
 PTHS--Point Type Heat Sensor.


[[Page 3940]]

Nonreportable Belt Entry Fires
    We have investigated some mine fires of less than 30 minutes 
duration, even though we do not require reporting of such fires. Since 
1987, we have investigated 13 nonreportable belt entry fires in mines 
that used an AMS. Three of these mines used both a CO-based AMS and 
PTHS. Of these 13 fires, four were detected by the AMS, two were 
detected by sight or smell followed by detection by the AMS, one was 
detected by the AMS followed by a heat sensor, and six were detected by 
sight or smell alone. Anecdotal information suggests that AMS have also 
detected other events, such as hot belt rollers and belts running in 
coal before a fire occurred. Table 2 provides information on 
nonreportable belt entry fires.

               Table 2.--Investigated Nonreportable (<30 Minutes) Belt Entry Fires Where AMS Used
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Fire detected by                          Belt air in
         Mine name         Date        Sensor type           * * *         Alert alarm (PPM)     working place
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1  Sunnyside No 3....    5/13/87  CO Sensor & PTHS..  Sight and/or       No Record.........  ..................
                                                        Smell.
 2  McClure No 1......    4/14/90  CO Sensor.........  Sight and/or       No Record.........  ..................
                                                        Smell.
 3  McClure No 1......    4/15/90  CO Sensor.........  Sight and/or       No Record.........  ..................
                                                        Smell.
 4  Bethlehem No 84...    6/21/91  CO Sensor.........  AMS..............  4, 7 & 10.........  Yes
 5  Cambria Slope 33..    11/1/91  CO Sensor.........  Sight and/or       No Record.........  ..................
                                                        Smell.
 6  JWR No 5..........    5/25/92  CO Sensor.........  AMS..............  10 & 15...........  Yes
 7  Blacksville No 2..    3/15/92  CO Sensor &PTHS...  AMS Then PTHS....  10 & 15...........  ..................
 8  Air Quality.......    2/22/95  CO Sensor.........  AMS..............  10 & 15...........  ..................
 9  Lightfoot.........      10/95  CO Sensor.........  Sight and/or       No Record.........  ..................
                                                        Smell.
10  Bailey............    6/19/96  CO Sensor & PTHS..  Sight and/or       10 & 15...........  ..................
                                                        Smell Then AMS.
11  Foidel Creek......   10/22/96  CO Sensor.........  AMS..............  7 & 11.7..........  ..................
12  Shoemaker.........     1/6/00  CO Sensor.........  Sight............  10 & 15...........  No
13  Wabash............   10/15/01  CO Sensor.........  Sight and/or       10 & 15...........  No
                                                        Smell Then AMS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 AMS--Atmospheric Monitoring System.
 ACO--Carbon Monoxide.
PTHS--Point Type Heat Sensor.

III. Summary and Considerations of the Advisory Committee Report, 
Recent Belt Air Petitions, and BEVR Report

    The following summaries are provided to compare the proposed rule 
with the recommendations made in the Advisory Committee Report and the 
BEVR Report, as well as requirements contained in recent belt air 
petitions.

A. Overview of Advisory Committee Recommendations and Proposed Rule 
Sections

    The following section reviews recommendations made by the Advisory 
Committee and cites applicable proposed rule language. The proposed 
rule includes the vast majority of the Advisory Committee 
recommendations. Where the recommended conditions are not included, we 
discuss MSHA's reasons for not proposing them as part of this 
rulemaking. In addition, the recommendations are specifically addressed 
in the Section-by-Section Analysis.
    There are three basic issues addressed by the Committee report, 
with a number of recommendations under each issue. These issues are:
    1. The conditions under which belt haulage entries could be safely 
used as intake air courses to ventilate working places;
    2. Minimum air velocities in belt entries; and
    3. Ventilation of escapeways.

B. Advisory Committee Recommendations

    Advisory Committee Recommendation 1. Belt haulage entries can be 
safely used as intake air courses to ventilate working places 
provided additional safety and health conditions are met.

    The Advisory Committee affirmed the recommendation that belt air 
could be safely used providing carbon monoxide or smoke detectors were 
installed in the belt entry. The Agency agrees, and is proposing to 
modify Sec.  75.350 to allow the use of belt air provided certain 
requirements are met, including the installation of an AMS, equipped 
with carbon monoxide monitors or smoke detectors.

    Advisory Committee Recommendation 2. When belt haulage entries 
are used to ventilate working places, one of the additional 
conditions is the presence within the belt haulage entry of an 
early-warning fire detection system.

    Included in this recommendation are 14 items for the Agency to 
consider in administering the implementation of early-warning fire 
detection systems.
Item 1. Actions Before Using Belt Air for Face Ventilation
    The Advisory Committee recommended:


    ``Prior to belt haulage entries being used to ventilate working 
places:
    (a) Proposed changes should be outlined in the mine ventilation 
plan;
    (b) Miners shall be trained in the basic principles of the early 
warning fire detection system and the actions required in the event 
of a section alarm;
    (c) Appropriate personnel responsible for installation, 
maintenance, operation and inspection of the system should be 
trained in their duties; and
    (d) The early warning fire detection system should be inspected 
by MSHA.''

    For mines currently not using belt air to ventilate working 
sections (i.e., those without granted petitions), the mines would need 
to receive MSHA approval to make required changes in their ventilation 
plans prior to using belt air to ventilate working sections. We propose 
a requirement for training of miners under Sec.  75.350(b)(2). These 
specific training requirements could be included in the training 
required under part 48. Specific training requirements for AMS 
operators are proposed in Sec.  75.351(q).
    We did not include in this proposed rule a separate requirement for 
MSHA to inspect the fire detection system because AMSs used in belt 
entries would be inspected as part of normal MSHA inspection 
activities. The proposed rule includes all other conditions of this 
Advisory Committee item.
Item 2. Capabilities of the AMS
    The Advisory Committee recommended:

    ``The early warning fire detection system should be capable of:

[[Page 3941]]

    (a) Monitoring electrical continuity and detecting electrical 
malfunctions of the system;
    (b) Identifying any activated or malfunction sensor; and
    (c) Giving notice of a fire for a minimum of four hours after 
the source of power to the belt is removed, except when power is 
removed during a fan stoppage or the belt is examined as provided in 
section 75.1103-4(e)(1) or (2).''

    Monitoring circuit continuity and electrical malfunctions is 
required under proposed Sec.  75.351(c), minimum operating 
requirements. This is also the section of the proposed rule addressing 
identification of any activated or malfunctioning sensor. Belt 
stoppages are addressed in proposed Sec.  75.351(a). The proposed rule 
includes all conditions of this item.
Item 3. Minimum Velocity and Location of Sensors
    The Advisory Committee recommended:

    ``In mines using belt air to ventilate working places, the 
minimum velocity in the belt haulage entry should be at least 50 
fpm. An early warning fire detection system (low level carbon 
monoxide or equivalent) in belt haulage entries should monitor the 
atmosphere at the following locations:
    (a) Belt entries utilized as intake aircourses, at intervals not 
to exceed 1,000 feet;
    (b) At the section tailpiece or not more than 50 feet inby the 
tailpiece on the same split of air;
    (c) One sensor at the drive unit area (belt drive, belt take-up, 
belt tailpiece or combination thereof) not less than 50 feet and not 
more than 100 feet inby on the same split of air; and
    (d) When belt and track are in separate entries and are not 
separated by stoppings on section panels, a CO (or equivalent) 
sensor should be placed at the inby end of the section track.''

    The proposed rule requirement varies slightly from the Advisory 
Committee report, which suggested minimum velocities of 50 feet per 
minute (fpm). Proposed Sec. Sec.  75.351(e)(1) and (4) contain the 
requirements for the section tailpiece sensor and at each drive along 
the belt.
    Proposed Sec.  75.351(e)(3) includes the 50 fpm minimum in 
locations where 1,000-foot sensor spacing is used. However, we have 
proposed the use of lower air velocities, providing sensor spacing is 
reduced to 350 feet. These lower air velocities are based on research 
conducted by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health 
(NIOSH) after the Advisory Committee report was completed.
    The Advisory Committee recommended that a sensor be placed at the 
end of the track when the track and belt are not separated by 
stoppings. We believe this requirement does not add a significant level 
of protection because the sensor at the end of the track would monitor 
the same air as the sensors in the belt entry. Our in-mine studies 
indicate that there is air movement between these entries in the air 
course, making monitors in the belt entry sufficient for early 
detection of contaminants. Therefore we do not propose placing a sensor 
at the end of the track. We are proposing the installation of sensors 
in the intake escapeway, separate from belt.
    However, we have included in proposed Sec.  75.351(e)(5) a 
requirement for other monitoring locations required by the district 
manager and specified in the mine ventilation plan. This provision 
would require the placement of a sensor at the end of the track if the 
district manager determines that it is necessary. The proposed rule 
includes all other conditions of this item.
    MSHA agrees that for mines using sensor spacing of 1,000 feet, the 
minimum velocity of 50 fpm must be maintained. As the Advisory 
Committee recognized, the air flow rate is an important variable in 
fire detection. We have proposed a requirement in Sec.  75.352(e) to 
address situations where less than 50 fpm is measured in mines with 
1,000 foot sensor spacing to assure that the ventilation system is 
returned to proper operation. In these circumstances, a trained person 
would patrol and monitor the affected area until the air flow is 
restored.
Item 4. Section Alarms
    The Advisory Committee recommended:

    ``Section alarms should give a visual and audible warning signal 
on the affected working section if carbon monoxide (or equivalent) 
reaches the established levels. The section alarm should be at a 
location where it can be seen or heard by persons working on the 
section.''

    The Advisory Committee stated that section alarms should give a 
visual and audible signal on the affected working section if CO levels 
reach `established levels,' and that section alarms be located where 
they can be seen or heard. Under proposed Sec.  75.351(c)(4), section 
alarms would give a visual and audible signal and would need to be 
located where they can be seen and heard when the CO, smoke, or methane 
concentration at any sensor reaches the alarm level specified in Sec.  
75.351(i).
    The proposed rule would not require automatic section alarm 
activation during alert conditions, but rather only during alarm 
conditions. MSHA believes the frequency of alert signals could lead to 
complacency among miners, and it is preferable for other actions, as 
noted in proposed Sec.  75.352, to occur at alert levels. Proposed 
Sec.  75.352(b)(1) would require that the sensor activated be 
identified and an examination begun immediately to determine the cause 
of the alert signal. The proposed rule meets the recommendation of 
alarm location included in this item.
Item 5. Responsible Person at Surface
    The Advisory Committee recommended:

    ``At all times when miners are underground a responsible 
person(s) should:
    (a) Be on duty on the surface, so that the alert/alarm signals 
can be seen or heard;
    (b) Maintain a record of each alert and alarm signal and actions 
taken;
    (c) Have 2-way communication with all working sections. When 
alert and alarm levels are reached, this person should notify 
personnel at working sections and other personnel who may be 
endangered;
    (d) Be trained in the operation of the early warning fire 
detection system and emergency communication system.
    (e) Be trained in the proper procedures to follow in the event 
of an emergency or malfunction; and
    (f) Take appropriate action upon alarm activation and 
verification.''

    This item contains conditions concerning responses to alert and 
alarm levels by surface personnel. Proposed Sec.  75.301 defines the 
responsible person as the AMS operator. The proposed section also 
requires that the AMS operator be on duty at a location where signals 
can be seen or heard, and that the operator can respond promptly to the 
signals. Recordkeeping requirements are included in proposed Sec.  
75.351(o), as well as two-way communications in proposed Sec.  
75.351(b)(1). Proposed Sec.  75.351(q) requires that all AMS operators 
receive training in the proper operation of the AMS. The proposed rule 
meets the recommendation of the Advisory Committee for this item.
Item 6--Actions of Personnel Underground Upon Alert/Alarm Activation 
and Item 7--Actions of Personnel on the Surface Upon Alert/Alarm 
Activation
    The Advisory Committee recommended in Item 6:

    ``When the early warning fire detection system reaches the 
alert/alarm mode, an audible and visual alarm signal should activate 
on the surface at the mine and at the working section(s). When 
section alert/alarms signals are activated the following actions 
should be taken:
    (a) Alert--When alert levels are reached, the sensor that is 
activated is identified and section workers inby are notified of an 
``alert mode'' and are withdrawn to a safe location

[[Page 3942]]

outby the working places, unless the cause is known beforehand not 
to be a hazard. An examination is then made to determine the cause 
of the activation.
    (b) Alarm--When alarm levels are reached, the sensor that is 
activated is identified and all persons in the same split of air are 
withdrawn to a safe location outby the sensor activating the alarm, 
unless the cause is known beforehand not to be a hazard. An 
examination is then made and if a hazard exists, the mine Fire 
Fighting and Evacuation Plan is implemented.
    (c) During the alert/alarm mode the belt may, at the discretion 
of the mine operator, continue to operate until the area is 
examined.''

    And in Item 7 the Advisory Committee stated:

    ``In the event of an alert, personnel on the surface, except 
those necessary to investigate the cause of the alert, should not 
enter the affected area of the mine unless the cause of the alert is 
known beforehand not to present a hazard. In the event of an alarm, 
personnel on the surface, except those persons necessary to 
investigate the cause of the alarm, should not enter any area of the 
mine unless the cause of the alarm is known beforehand not to 
present a hazard.''

    Actions in response to AMS alert and alarm signals for both 
underground and surface personnel would be covered by proposed Sec.  
75.352. In the event of an alert signal, the sensor activated would be 
identified and an examination would begin immediately to determine the 
cause of the alert signal. The Advisory Committee recommended that the 
section personnel be withdrawn to a safe location outby the working 
places. MSHA believes that this action is not warranted prior to an 
examination of the affected sensor. If during the examination of the 
sensor, a fire hazard is discovered before an alarm level is detected, 
evacuation should be initiated.
    MSHA agrees that alarm activations should necessitate withdrawal of 
personnel to the sensor outby the sensor in alarm state.
    The proposed rule does not address the continuing operation of a 
belt in the event of alarm activation. While MSHA's experience suggests 
that belts normally should not be stopped, it is the decision of the 
mine operator to take whatever actions are needed to protect miners and 
mine property.
    There has been anecdotal evidence to show that combustion of the 
conveyor belt fabric does not usually occur unless the belt is stopped. 
Moving conveyor belts, while creating frictional heating, do not 
normally burn with open flame.
    In addition, the proposed rule does not address restrictions on 
persons entering the mine when either alert or alarm signals occur. 
MSHA believes that mine operators must be given flexibility in how they 
respond to emergencies in order to better protect the miners. We 
believe any persons entering the mine in an emergency should be only 
those needed to respond to the emergency, as indicated in the mine's 
emergency evacuation and firefighting program of instruction, Sec.  
75.1502 (formerly referred to under Sec.  75.1101-23--Program of 
instruction; location and use of fire fighting equipment; location of 
escapeways, exits and routes of travel; evacuation procedures; fire 
drills).
Item 8--Avoidance of Nuisance Alarms
    The Advisory Committee stated:

    ``To avoid nuisance alert signals, the District Manager may 
approve a plan which requires incorporation of reasonable time 
delays or other techniques (computer/administrative) into the alert/
alarm signal system. The Committee determined that experience gained 
by the Agency during the petition for modification process could be 
used as a guideline. When a planned activity which may result in CO 
above the alarm levels being produced, such as cutting, welding, 
calibration, blasting, major equipment moves requiring the use of 
diesel equipment, etc., is scheduled, the person in charge of the 
activity should notify the responsible person at the surface 
monitoring station of:
    (a) The location and type of activity;
    (b) The time the activity begins; and
    (c) The time the activity is completed.
    Anticipated alerts/alarms require notification to sections inby 
on the same split of air prior to and after planned activities.
    A fire check for hot spots is required after cutting and welding 
is performed. Should hot spots be found, they should be extinguished 
immediately.''

    The Advisory Committee report indicated the use of tools to reduce 
the frequency of alarms due to non-fire conditions could be effective 
in maintaining the confidence of miners as well as bolstering the 
importance of alarms. These tools include time delays and other data 
analyzing techniques which could prevent the ``cry-wolf'' syndrome, in 
which alarms are discounted as ``just that diesel scoop'' or ``must be 
cutting belt structure again.'' MSHA agrees that these tools may be of 
value.
    Proposed Sec.  75.351(m) allows the use of these tools when a 
demonstrated need exists, while proposed Sec.  75.371(11) requires the 
method to be included in the approved mine ventilation plan. Time 
delays are limited to a maximum of three minutes. MSHA experience 
indicates that this is normally sufficient to account for non-fire 
signals.
    There is technology available that distinguishes the products of 
combustion produced by diesel engines and by open flame. MSHA 
encourages the use of such technology to reduce or eliminate nuisance 
alarms and the need for time delays. We also believe operators should 
explore implementation of future technological advances. As these 
technologies evolve, MSHA will encourage their implementation through 
the mine ventilation plan approval process.
    Prior to being approved for use, the operator will be expected to 
demonstrate the need for such a tool, as well as the expected benefit 
from using the tool. In this case, records indicating the frequency of 
alert and alarm signals, as well as the duration of the alert and alarm 
signals will be of value to the operator. The proposed rule meets the 
recommendation of the Advisory Committee for this item.
Item 9--Fire Fighting and Evacuation Plan Contents; Records and Item 
10--AMS Calibration, Testing, Examinations and Records
    The Advisory Committee recommended in Item 9:

    ``Under 30 CFR 75.1101-23(a), the mine Fire Fighting and 
Evacuation Plan and subsequent revisions should incorporate the 
operation of the early warning fire detection system and at a 
minimum, should specify:
    (a) The action to be taken to determine the cause of the alert 
and alarm signals:
    (b) The location(s) for withdrawal of miners for alert and alarm 
signals; and
    (c) The procedures to be followed if an alert or alarm signal is 
activated.
    If an alert or alarm is activated, a record should be made of 
the date, time, location of sensor, concentration at the sensor and 
the reason for its activation. The records should be reviewed and 
initialed by management personnel on a monthly basis.''

    The Advisory Committee recommended in Item 10:

    ``In order to maintain the early warning fire detection 
monitoring system in proper operating condition, the following 
activities should be performed:
    (a) The monitoring system and sensors should be visually 
examined at least once each coal producing shift;
    (b) Each sensor should be calibrated with a known concentration 
of carbon monoxide (or equivalent) and air mixtures, sufficient to 
activate the alarm, at intervals not exceeding 31 calendar days;
    (c) Alert and alarm signals should be tested for operation at 
intervals not exceeding 7 days; and
    (d) Inspection records should be maintained on the surface, 
recording the date and time of each weekly test of alert and alarm 
signals, calibration, and maintenance performed on the system. The 
records should be maintained for one year and made available to 
management, MSHA and mine personnel.''

    MSHA agrees with the Advisory Committee report that there are 
specific activities following the activation of

[[Page 3943]]

alert and alarm signals that should be covered under the provisions of 
the approved program of instruction under Sec.  75.1502 (commonly 
referred to as the mine emergency evacuation and firefighting program 
of instruction). We have included in proposed Sec. Sec.  75.351(b)(1), 
75.352(a)(2), and 75.352(b)(2), requirements for including these 
actions and additional information in the approved program of 
instruction. It is MSHA's experience that the operator can use the data 
recorded from alert signals, alarms, malfunctions, calibrations, and 
maintenance as an effective tool for maintaining an effective fire 
detection system. MSHA is not proposing to require the operator to 
review and initial records on a monthly basis because we believe that 
the proposed requirements of Sec.  75.351(o)--recordkeeping and Sec.  
75.351(p)--retention period, fulfill the intent of this recommendation. 
MSHA expects since the ``AMS log'' is available for review by the 
miners and authorized representatives of the Secretary, that the mine 
operator will also review the AMS log data.
    MSHA is including in proposed Sec.  75.351(n) requirements for 
examinations, testing, and calibration of the AMS sensors. These are 
the same requirements recommended by the Advisory Committee. MSHA is 
proposing in Sec.  75.351(o) recordkeeping requirements for alert and 
alarm signals, malfunctions, tests, calibrations, and maintenance of 
the AMS. We intend the visual examination to be completed as part of 
the on-shift examination already required under Sec.  75.362(b).
Item 11--AMS Malfunction
    The Advisory Committee recommended:

    ``If any portion of the early warning fire detection system 
malfunctions, the affected belt haulage conveyor may continue to 
operate. The responsible person should notify all sections affected. 
Once it has been determined that the cause is a malfunction, a 
qualified person(s) having access to communications with the 
responsible person on the surface should patrol the affected area 
and monitor for carbon monoxide or equivalent with a handheld 
detector(s) as outlined below for the period of time necessary to 
identify the problem and make necessary repairs:
    (a) If one sensor becomes inoperative, a qualified person should 
monitor at that location;
    (b) If two or more adjacent sensors become inoperative, a 
qualified person should patrol and monitor the area affected; and
    (c) If the complete system becomes inoperative, a sufficient 
number of qualified persons shall patrol and monitor so the affected 
belt entries are traveled each hour in their entirety. If the 
failure lasts more than eight (8) hours, then the MSHA District 
Manager should be notified immediately.
    Handheld carbon monoxide detectors (or equivalent) should be 
maintained in a working condition, and available for use in a timely 
manner.''

    This item in the Advisory Committee report describes the actions 
required if any sensor(s) or portions of the AMS system become 
inoperable for any reason. Proposed Sec.  75.352(d) would require 
the actions as suggested by the Advisory Committee to be taken. We 
believe that operators will have an interest in repairing and 
restoring monitoring capabilities as soon as possible. There is no 
need to limit the use of hand monitoring since it is considered a 
safe alternative. For this reason, we are not including a 
requirement to report to MSHA any malfunction exceeding 8 hours as 
recommended by the Advisory Committee.
    MSHA is proposing to require the immediate reporting to the 
surface of any contaminant measurements exceeding the appropriate 
alert and alarm levels. Even when contaminants do not exceed alert 
and alarm levels, personnel must report the levels to the AMS 
operator at intervals not to exceed one hour. The proposed rule 
achieves the intent of the recommendation.

Item 12--Mine Ventilation Map
    The Advisory Committee recommended:

    ``The mine ventilation map should contain the details of the 
early warning fire detection system, including the type of sensor 
(CO or equivalent) and the sensor location and should be posted at 
the mine.''

    In proposed Sec.  75.351(b), MSHA would require that a map or 
schematic be posted. Also, the proposed rule would require the operator 
to indicate the intended air flow direction at each sensor location on 
the map. MSHA believes this information will be helpful if evacuation 
of personnel is necessary. The proposed rule meets the recommendation 
of the Advisory Committee for this item.
Item 13--Smoke Sensors; Slippage Switches
    The Advisory Committee recommended:

    ``In mines using belt air to ventilate working places, slippage 
switches should be integrated into the early warning fire detection 
system. Where it is not feasible to do so, the switches should be 
visually examined each production shift. Smoke sensors (or 
equivalent) when commercially available, should be installed no more 
than 100 feet inby each drive.''

    MSHA is not adopting this recommendation of the Advisory Committee 
into its proposed rule. We believe that properly maintained slippage 
switches do not require monitoring. We would be interested in receiving 
comments on the merits and drawbacks of this recommendation. 
Specifically, we solicit comments on:
    (1) The benefits of integration of slippage switch monitoring into 
AMSs for belt air mines;
    (2) the cost of such a requirement; and
    (3) any difficulty operators may experience in accomplishing this 
action, if required.
Item 14--Backup Communication
    The Advisory Committee recommended:

    ``The communication system in use at the mine should be capable 
of providing backup communication to the working section(s). This 
redundancy may be in the form of; two communication lines, the use 
of one communication line plus another form of communication (e.g., 
leaky feeder, trolley, wireless, automatic alert/alarms, etc.), or 
any other equally effective system(s) selected by the operator.
    In operations having only one means of verbal communication:
    (a) Transmission lines for the automatic section alarms and 
phone should be carried in separate entries; and
    (b) In the event of failure of the phone system, and the section 
receives an alarm, miners should be evacuated as required in the 
mine Fire Fighting and Evacuation Plan.''

    MSHA agrees that the communication line should be maintained in an 
entry other than that used for the AMS data transmission line. In 
proposed Sec.  75.351(r), we would require that two separate means of 
communication be maintained from the surface to the working sections 
and setup or removal areas.
    MSHA believes that the AMS data transmission line provides one form 
of communication, and that a second two-way system should be installed 
in a separate entry. If the mine's primary two-way system is installed 
along with the AMS line, a second method of two-way communication would 
be required. This method could include a second mine phone line. The 
proposal meets the recommendation of the Advisory Committee for this 
item.

C. Advisory Committee's Discussion on Velocity Caps

    MSHA agrees with the Advisory Committee discussion on this issue, 
and has proposed in Sec.  75.351(i)(2) that reduced alert and alarm 
settings may be required for some CO sensor locations. The locations 
would be specified in the mine ventilation plan according to the 
requirements in proposed Sec.  75.371(mm).
    MSHA has not included any specific document or guideline for 
reducing these settings. Rather, we agree with the Advisory Committee 
discussion that the District Manager should use all available 
information, including

[[Page 3944]]

information provided by research, as guidance for reducing the settings 
for specific locations. This issue must be addressed on a mine-by-mine 
basis as conditions warrant.

    Advisory Committee Recommendation 3--Miners should be trained in 
the basic principles of the early-warning fire detection system and 
the actions required in the event of activation of a system alarm. 
Appropriate personnel responsible for the installation, maintenance, 
operation, and inspection of the system should be trained in their 
duties. In the special case of the AMS operator, who is the person 
responsible for monitoring the system, and, hence, initiating the 
fire fighting and evacuation plan, MSHA should assure, by 
examination of competency, the training and its effectiveness 
received by that person. At any time there are workers underground 
in an AMS-equipped mine, there should be a trained operator within 
sight or sound of the control station.

    In this proposed rule, MSHA has included training requirements for 
AMS operators, AMS installation and maintenance personnel, and all 
miners to assure responses to the AMS alert and alarm signals are 
timely and effective. MSHA has not included a requirement for 
competency testing of the AMS operator because each AMS is unique to a 
specific mine. The mine operator is required to train the AMS operator 
to respond to the system. The training requirements for AMS operators 
are proposed in Sec.  75.351(q) and the requirements for training of 
maintenance personnel are proposed in Sec.  75.351(k). Training of both 
the AMS operators and maintenance personnel should be conducted in 
accordance with manufacturer's instructions, as part of the mine 
operator's maintenance program. These training programs fall under 
existing 30 CFR 75.160--Training programs and 75.161--Plans for 
training programs. General training would be required under proposed 
Sec.  75.350(b)(2). Training is required for all new miners and in 
annual refresher training required under part 48.

    Advisory Committee Recommendation 4--In mines using an AMS as a 
condition for using air in the conveyor belt entry to ventilate 
working places, the minimum velocity in the belt entry should be 50 
feet per minute.

    As previously discussed, MSHA agrees that for spacing of sensors at 
intervals of 1000 feet, a minimum velocity of 50 fpm is required. For 
lower velocities, research has shown that a 350-foot spacing can 
provide adequate early warning. MSHA has included this sensor spacing 
requirement in proposed Sec.  75.351(e)(3).

    Advisory Committee Recommendation 5--The agency should move 
forward with the development and promulgation of approval schedules 
for early-warning fire detection systems (including smoke sensors). 
Approval schedules should include performance standards as well as 
safety standards and should be flexible enough to permit advances in 
technology.

    MSHA has decided not to develop approval schedules for AMSs. 
However, we are proposing in Sec.  75.351(l) that the sensors be listed 
or certified by a nationally recognized testing laboratory (NRTL). The 
standards used by the NRTLs to list or certify the sensors will be 
American National Standards. Systems are required by existing Sec.  
75.1103-2(b) (Automatic fire sensors; approved components; installation 
requirements) to meet the 1967 National Fire Code, 72A. This was an 
American National Standard.
    Requiring the NRTL approval will not discourage new technology, as 
we have also proposed in Sec.  75.351(l) that the components can be 
approved by the Secretary, allowing MSHA to accept new technology that 
has not yet been approved by a NRTL. MSHA is also proposing minimum 
operating requirements in proposed Sec.  75.351(c); minimum 
installation requirements in proposed Sec. Sec.  75.351(d) and (e); and 
operating parameters in proposed Sec. Sec.  75.351(i) and (j). We agree 
that the regulation must provide flexibility to allow advances in 
technology, and believe this approach provides that flexibility. The 
Agency will continue to evaluate systems for intrinsic safety.

    Advisory Committee Recommendation 6--Velocities, both minimum 
and maximum, should provide air that is capable of containing 
methane and dust levels at or below the levels specified in the 
standards. The concentration of respirable dust in a belt conveyor 
haulageway used to ventilate the working place should not exceed 1.0 
mg/m\3\ at a point just outby the section tailpiece. The 
concentration of respirable dust at all other outby locations in the 
belt haulageways should not exceed 2.0 mg/m\3\. Designated areas 
should be established at appropriate locations in the belt 
haulageway for dust measurement and should be identified in the 
ventilation system and methane and dust control plan.

    Proposed Sec.  75.350 (b)(3) would require respirable dust levels 
as recommended by the Advisory Committee, and would require the 
establishment of permanent designated areas for sampling near section 
tailpieces. The 2.0 mg/m3 standard and establishment of 
designated areas for outby areas already exists in part 70. Methane 
action levels are addressed in Sec.  75.323.

    Advisory Committee Recommendation 7--The minimum air velocity in 
belt haulage entries in all mines, whether belt air is used to 
ventilate working places or not, should be established based on the 
ability of the air current to reduce the potential for methane 
layering.

    MSHA believes that the air velocity in mines utilizing the belt as 
an intake under Sec.  75.350 will have sufficient velocity to avoid 
methane layering. However, we believe that layering is no less 
dangerous in mines not using belt air. Means to address methane 
layering are already addressed under Sec. Sec.  75.321 (Air quality) 
and 75.323 (Actions for excessive methane). No new provisions are 
included in this proposed rule.

    Advisory Committee Recommendation 8--Lifelines should be 
installed and maintained in all primary and alternate escapeways. 
Tracks and belts can be treated as acceptable lifelines, provided 
that, where track switches and belt transfers exist, provisions are 
made for clear designation of the escape route.

    The Advisory Committee recommended that lifelines be installed and 
maintained in all escapeways. The Advisory Committee heard testimony 
from several members of the industry to the effect that lifelines are 
beneficial. However, they also heard that lifelines placed in active 
entries were quickly destroyed due to normal mining activities and that 
repair was not considered a priority. Therefore, we have not included a 
requirement for lifelines in the proposed rule. We solicit comments on 
the need for, costs of, and the maintainability of, lifelines in 
escapeways.

    Advisory Committee Recommendation 9--Ventilation of the primary 
and alternate escapeways should consider the interfaces and 
interrelationships among all aspects of the mining system (e.g., the 
haulage system, the ventilation system, the production system, 
etc.). Ventilation systems should be designed and maintained to 
protect the integrity of the mine atmosphere in the primary intake 
escapeway. The alternate escapeway should be designed and maintained 
to maximize the possibilities of escape. Information submitted in 
the ventilation plan approval should include substantiating data 
relative to the integrity of the mine atmosphere in the escapeways 
under normal and pressurized conditions.

    The Advisory Committee recognized the importance of protecting the 
``integrity of the atmosphere'' in the primary escapeway. In addressing 
this issue, the Advisory Committee report states, ``it is desirable, 
even during normal operation of the mine, to maintain the integrity of 
the mine atmosphere in the escapeways by providing a positive pressure 
differential between the escapeways and the adjacent entries.'' MSHA 
agrees that separation of the belt air course from the primary 
escapeway is essential in

[[Page 3945]]

providing miners a safe route to the surface. One method to help 
accomplish this would be to maintain the primary escapeway at a 
pressure that is higher than the adjacent entries.
    However, the Advisory Committee recognized that, sometimes, it may 
be difficult to maintain the pressure differential in the proper 
direction. Because of the difficulty of maintaining the primary 
escapeway at a higher pressure than an adjacent air course, MSHA has 
decided not to propose this requirement. MSHA believes that the air 
quantity in the belt air course and the air quantity in the intake air 
courses along with the pressure differential between these air courses 
must be addressed on a mine by mine basis through the mine ventilation 
plan process (Sec.  75.370(a)). The intent is to control the total air 
quantity in the belt air course relative to the other intake air 
courses and also to control the pressure differential between the air 
courses. It is vital that the belt air course and the intake escapeway 
ventilation be addressed as part of the entire mine's ventilation 
system. The proper balance must be maintained regarding total air 
quantities in the air courses and pressure differentials between the 
air courses. This can be achieved on a mine-by-mine basis through the 
mine ventilation plan process.
    In lieu of this requirement, proposed Sec.  75.351(f) would require 
the mine operator to monitor the intake escapeway air current for fire 
contaminants at the beginning and end of the section panel.
    MSHA has included in these proposed requirements to allow for the 
use of point feeding to provide air to the belt entry from other intake 
entries. MSHA agrees with the provisions listed by the Advisory 
Committee, and believes that proposed Sec. Sec.  75.350(c) and 
75.351(f), along with the existing construction requirements for 
regulators under Sec.  75.333, (Ventilation controls), achieve the 
objective of the recommendation.

    Advisory Committee Recommendation 10--It is the consensus of the 
Belt Air Advisory Committee that MSHA proceed rapidly to develop 
regulations for improved fire resistant belting, including new 
testing and approval schedules. Notwithstanding the scope of the 
committee charter, the committee recommends that once available, the 
improved fire resistant belting material should be used in all 
underground coal mines.

    This issue was placed in a separate rulemaking in 1989. Since that 
time the number and severity of conveyor belt fires has significantly 
declined. Only two of the ten conveyor belt fires reported between 1993 
and 2002 involved injuries to miners. In both of these fires, the 
injuries were limited to smoke inhalation. We attribute this decrease 
in conveyor belt fires to improvements in belt monitoring and to 
technological advances which have occurred during the past 10 years.
    The most notable improvement in belt monitoring is the mining 
industry's increased use of AMSs in conveyor belt passageways. 
Monitoring systems in general give advance warning to allow a fire in a 
belt entry to be detected and addressed sooner, thereby limiting fire 
damage and injuries to miners. An AMS also provides advanced warning of 
CO and methane concentrations, thereby alerting mine operators to 
potentially hazardous situations.
    Although AMSs have been in use for many years, these systems have 
rapidly become more sophisticated, evolving from simple monitors into 
complex devices with integral computer technology capable of 
transmitting environmental measurements from remote locations to 
attended mine locations.
    In addition, this proposed rule also reduces alert and alarm levels 
to 5 and 10 ppm, respectively, from levels specified in existing 
petitions for modification. Also, sensor spacing has been reduced from 
2,000 feet to 1,000 feet. These additional safety requirements increase 
the level of fire safety in mines that choose to use belt air to 
ventilate working sections. Therefore, we believe that we have achieved 
the intent of this recommendation (reduction of belt fires) by lowering 
the alert and alarm levels to provide increased early warning of the 
presence of fire contaminants, as well as, reducing the spacing of the 
sensors.

    Advisory Committee Recommendation 11--In mines using belt air to 
ventilate working places, the alert and alarm levels for AMS should 
not exceed 5 ppm and 10 ppm CO (or equivalent) above ambient, 
respectively. The MSHA District Manager may establish lower alert 
and alarm levels for AMS based upon the sensor type and sensitivity, 
sensor spacing, air flow, cross-sectional area and local mining 
conditions. Alerts and alarms should be automatically activated on 
the surface and on the working section(s) when the CO (or 
equivalent) levels exceed the established levels.

    As previously discussed, proposed Sec.  75.351(i) sets out the 
maximum alert and alarm levels at 5 and 10 ppm CO respectively. The 
District Manager can require lower alert and alarm levels according to 
this same section. The proposed rule meets all of the provisions of 
this recommendation of the Advisory Committee except automatic alert 
activation on working sections. In the section-by-section analysis of 
this preamble, we discuss our reasons for not including automatic 
alerts to be activated on working sections.

    Advisory Committee Recommendation 12--In mines using belt air to 
ventilate working places, increased emphasis should be placed on 
belt entry cleanup and conveyor belt maintenance.

    MSHA agrees with the Advisory Committee and believes cleanup and 
maintenance in the belt entry poses no less of a hazard in mines not 
using belt air. Accumulations of coal at drives due to spillage are 
prohibited according to existing Sec.  75.400. We are not proposing any 
additional regulation for belt entry cleanup and maintenance.

D. Preamble Summary--Current Petition Requirements

    We reviewed the latest 20 proposed decision and orders (PDOs) for 
petitions for modification of Sec.  75.350 (Air courses and belt 
haulage entries) to determine common requirements for using belt air. 
Two-entry petition mines were not included in this analysis because 
these mines would still need to file petitions to use a two entry 
mining system as a result of this rule. The following requirements 
included in petitions are identified as follows.

  Table 3.--Comparison of Requirements in Recent Proposed Decisions and Orders (PDOS) With Requirements in the
                                                  Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Requirement in PDOS                     Number of PDOS              Requirement included in proposed rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation of AMS..............  20 out of 20..........................  Yes
Spacing 1000 feet................  20 out of 20..........................  Yes
Monitor Drives 50-100 feet.......  20 out of 20..........................  Yes
Monitor splits 50-100 feet.......  20 out of 20..........................  Yes

[[Page 3946]]

 
Monitor Electrical Installations   20 out of 20..........................  Yes (50 feet)
 100 feet.
Identify activated sensor........  20 out of 20..........................  Yes
Minimum air velocity 50 fpm......  20 out of 20..........................  Yes
Alert Sections, Investigate......  20 out of 20..........................  Yes
Alert/Alarm Surface, Withdraw      20 out of 20..........................  Yes
 Sections.
Alarm section within 4000 feet,    20 out of 20..........................  No
 or section mouth.
Two-way communications...........  20 out of 20..........................  Yes
Alert/Alarm settings from Tables.  20 out of 20..........................  No
Maximum air quantity 202,000 cfm.  20 out of 20..........................  No
Maximum 50 percent total section   20 out of 20..........................  No
 intake.
Visual Examination each shift....  20 out of 20..........................  Yes
Inspection 7 days................  20 out of 20..........................  Yes
Calibration 31 days..............  20 out of 20..........................  Yes
Records of Alert and Alarms,       20 out of 20..........................  Yes
 Maintenance, Calibrations.
Ventilation Plan Requirements....  20 out of 20..........................  Yes
Allow time delays 3 minute         20 out of 20..........................  Yes
 maximum.
System Failures--Monitoring and    20 out of 20..........................  Yes
 Patrolling.
Monitor 4 hours after power        20 out of 20..........................  Yes
 disconnect.
Monitor for short-circuit, open    20 out of 20..........................  Yes
 circuit.
Method for determining ambient     20 out of 20..........................  No
 specified.
Respirable Dust 1.0 mg/m\3\--DA..  20 out of 20..........................  Yes
Study required--multiple entries.  20 out of 20..........................  No
Mine design requirement--protect   20 out of 20..........................  No
 escapeway.
Alert--Notify and Investigate....  20 out of 20..........................  Yes
Alarm--Withdraw miners...........  20 out of 20..........................  Yes
Intake escapeway restrictions....  20 out of 20..........................  No
Flame-resistant belting..........  20 out of 20..........................  No
Allow Point-feeding..............  2 out of 20...........................  Yes
Require monitoring of point-feed.  1 out of 20...........................  Yes
Minimum Velocity 400 fpm through   1 out of 20...........................  Yes (300 fpm)
 point-feed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most requirements from the Sec.  75.350 proposed decisions and 
orders allowing the use of belt air are included in this proposed rule. 
As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are not including 
requirements for improved conveyor belt flame resistance. This rule 
which was originally proposed in 1992 was recently withdrawn from 
MSHA's regulatory agenda. (See 67 FR 46431). We are not requiring 
alarms on the section for sensors within 4,000 feet of the section to 
be automatically activated. Rather, we have proposed that any sensor in 
alarm would automatically notify affected areas.
    MSHA does not include language to require limits on the air 
quantity carried in the belt entry or air course. The Agency expects 
that any mine using more than 202,000 cubic feet per minute (cfm) will 
be an exception, and that modifications will be made by additional 
sensor installations and reduced alert and alarm levels required by the 
District Manager. In addition, we do not include any requirement 
limiting the ratio of belt air quantity to the total intake air 
quantity coursed to the section. We believe the requirements of the 
proposed rule are adequate for protecting miners. We have not included 
tables or nomographs developed from research to be used for determining 
appropriate alert and alarm levels. These tools would assist MSHA 
District Managers in reviewing ventilation plans for approval and 
determining additional requirements on a mine-by-mine basis. We feel 
that, for typical installations, the 5 and 10 ppm alert and alarm 
settings are adequate.
    We also do not specify a method for determining the ambient CO 
concentration. Under proposed Sec.  75.351(j) mine operators would be 
required to provide the Agency with AMS data or an equally effective 
method in setting ambient levels. The method for determining the 
ambient CO concentration would need to be approved in the mine 
ventilation plan.
    Unlike the Sec.  75.350 petitions, we are not requiring a provision 
to require a MSHA study in mines where more than one entry is common 
with the belt entry. In these mines, the District Manager may require 
additional sensors and reduced alert and alarm settings and we expect 
these requirements to be set on a mine-by-mine basis.
    MSHA can involve its Technical Support branch to conduct such 
studies in mines where multiple entries indicate that additional 
safeguards may be needed. We have not included additional restrictions 
on the use of equipment in the intake escapeway. The Agency believes 
existing standards in Sec.  75.380 (Escapeways; bituminous and lignite 
mines) cover these requirements.
    A few belt air petitions included requirements for using belt air 
that are not listed in Table 3. Typically, these additional 
requirements were requested following negotiation between mine 
management and labor during the petition for modification process. Most 
of these requirements addressed mine-specific conditions, and 
therefore, are not germane to the safe use of belt air for mines with 
three or more entries that choose to use it. Some of these requirements 
are covered, in part, by either existing standards or this proposed 
rule. Conditions addressed in existing standards include:
    --Ambient CO levels * * * shall not be determined when diesel 
equipment is idling in an air split. This petition requirement is 
addressed in a new diesel standard that prohibits the idling of diesel-
powered equipment, 30 CFR 75.1916--Operation of diesel-powered 
equipment.
    --A ``Wall of Water'' fire suppression system shall be installed 
just inby the belt take-up/storage unit for each drive unit. Deluge-
type water sprays, foam

[[Page 3947]]

generators, or equivalent protection are required at all belt-conveyor 
drives by 30 CFR 75.1101--Deluge-type water sprays, foam generators; 
main and secondary belt-conveyor drives.
    --Stopping construction is specified as to the type of blocks, 
construction method, and coating of joints. A petition forbids use of 
Kennedy stoppings and hollow core block for stopping construction. 
These issues are substantially covered by existing provisions in 30 CFR 
75.333--Ventilation controls.
    --A special belt entry maintenance program is required by a 
petition, and identifies the manufacturer's recommended maintenance 
schedule. We believe this issue is covered by existing provisions in 30 
CFR 75.360--Preshift examination at fixed intervals; 75.362--On-shift 
examination; and 75.400--Accumulation of combustible materials.
    --Equipment considered potential fire sources in the intake 
escapeway are required to be equipped with fire suppression systems. 
These are already covered by existing provisions in 30 CFR 75.1107--
Fire suppression devices.
    Conditions that, based on Agency experience, are adequately 
addressed in the proposed rule include:
    --A few petitions contain very specific language on the placement 
of sensors. Sensors are required to be placed as near to the roof as 
feasible (efforts toward monitoring within 12 inches of the roof). We 
have not included the requirement to monitor within 12 inches of the 
roof. We consider the requirement of `as near the roof as feasible' in 
the proposed rule to be sufficient.
    --Patrolling of two adjacent sensors which are inoperative is 
required each 30 minutes. A complete system failure requires a one-hour 
period. MSHA is proposing that a one-hour period for all patrolling is 
sufficient.
    There is one condition in some of these atypical petitions that a 
directional lifeline shall be installed for the duration of the return 
escapeway when return entries are utilized as alternate escapeways. 
Even though this issue is not germane to the safe use of belt air, we 
are soliciting comments on the use of lifelines in this proposed rule 
because the Advisory Committee recommended their use (in Recommendation 
Number 8).

E. Preamble Summary--Belt Entry Ventilation Review

    In 1989, a committee was formed of MSHA staff to review safety 
questions surrounding the ventilation of belt conveyors in underground 
coal mines. The committee was referred to as the Belt Entry Ventilation 
Review (BEVR) committee. A final report issued by the BEVR committee 
made ten recommendations. The following discusses the recommendations 
and subsequent actions taken by MSHA to address the recommendations 
including proposed provisions included in this rule.
    1. Increased emphasis should be placed on belt maintenance, belt 
entry clean-up, and rock dusting.
    Maintenance, cleanup, and rock dusting in the belt entry are 
important for all mines using belt haulage. However, these items are 
already covered by existing regulations (Sec.  75.362(b)--On-shift 
examination and Sec.  75.400--Accumulation of combustible materials). 
MSHA issued a Program Information Bulletin (P89-40) in 1989 addressing 
inspection of belt entries to emphasize proper maintenance and clean-
up. We are not proposing any additional regulation for belt entry 
maintenance, cleanup, or rock dusting.
    2. Emphasis should be placed on proper construction and maintenance 
of stoppings separating intake escapeways from other intake entries.
    Again, regulations exist regarding the construction of stoppings, 
as well as all permanent ventilation controls (Sec.  75.333--
Ventilation controls). MSHA issued a Program Information Bulletin (P89-
35) in 1989 addressing inspection of stoppings to emphasize proper 
stopping construction and maintenance. The Agency believes no 
additional regulation is needed.
    3. Sections should be designed by entry location, number of 
entries, or pressure differential, to enhance the protection of the 
intake escapeway from contamination by fires in adjacent separate 
entries.
    The Agency agrees that mine design can provide additional benefits 
for protecting the intake escapeway. We believe mine operators should 
explore possible changes to ventilation systems. MSHA and the mine 
operator should work together in the mine ventilation plan approval 
process to address these issues. However, there are factors which will 
limit changes to mine ventilation system design, including methane 
liberation, geologic considerations, and other mine specific concerns. 
MSHA believes proposing regulations which dictate mine design are not 
needed, and thus is not proposing regulations concerning mine design.
    4. Intake escapeways should be maintained free of potential fire 
sources unless such sources are protected by fire suppression or other 
acceptable devices.
    Regulations finalized in 1996 (Sec.  75.340--Underground electrical 
installations) require electrical installations located in intake 
airways to be protected by noncombustible structures, or equipped with 
fire suppression. Also promulgated in 1996, regulations in Sec.  
75.380--Escapeways, prohibit the use of certain equipment in the 
primary escapeway, and requires the use of fire suppression on most 
other equipment. Proposed Sec.  75.350(b)(4) would require the 
monitoring of the intake escapeway by CO sensor(s) as part of the AMS, 
meeting all of the requirements of proposed Sec.  75.351.
    5. Directing air inby through the belt entry and to the return 
through a restrictive regulator or pipe overcast does not comply with 
section 75.326 and should be discontinued.
    This practice is no longer accepted by MSHA. We released a Program 
Policy Letter (P89-V-18) in 1989 stating that this practice should not 
be permitted because it allows belt air to ventilate working places; 
which was prohibited by former Sec.  75.326.
    6. Training should include all drills in communication and 
evacuation techniques and include precautions to be taken for escape 
through smoke.
    Existing Sec.  75.383--Escapeway maps and drills, requires mine 
evacuation drills and serves as a training tool for miners. Training 
issues have been addressed in the proposed regulations for all miners, 
and is required to be included in Part 48 training programs for new 
miners, annual retraining, and specific training for AMS operators. 
Training in smoke has been conducted and is available for many groups 
by the National Mine Safety and Health Academy in Beaver, West 
Virginia. MSHA's experience and the feedback from groups participating 
in this training has been very positive.
    While this training is available at the MSHA facility, it is not 
possible for all companies to train all miners in smoke, as other 
facilities are not readily available. We are not proposing new 
regulations in this area. We do expect that training plans will provide 
mine-specific training applicable to local conditions and concerns.
    7. Belt entries used to ventilate working places should be equipped 
with carbon monoxide monitoring systems or smoke detectors. MSHA and 
the Bureau of Mines should encourage development and testing of 
improved smoke detectors. MSHA should initiate the development of 
performance standards for CO monitors and smoke detectors. MSHA should 
continue to stress maintenance of CO monitoring systems.

[[Page 3948]]

    The proposed regulations require the use of an AMS to monitor the 
belt entry. MSHA participated in a joint program with the former Bureau 
of Mines and a manufacturer of smoke detectors that tested these 
instruments in the mine environment. MSHA is encouraging the 
development of new technology for fire detection and supports further 
research by NIOSH in this area. Rather than develop approval schedules, 
we have decided to require sensors to be listed by nationally 
recognized testing laboratories.
    8. MSHA should consider requiring improvements to or replacement of 
point-type heat sensors.
    We would require the use of an AMS as a condition to safely use 
belt air to ventilate the working section. This is a cornerstone of the 
proposed rule.
    Point-type heat sensors (PTHSs) or equivalent are currently 
required under existing Sec.  75.1103-4(a)(1) as part of the automatic 
fire sensor and warning device systems. The proposed rule will allow 
mine operators to use CO sensors in place of PTHSs as an equivalent 
method.
    9. Where belt air is directed outby from the section, water lines 
should be relocated from the belt to a separate intake entry to 
facilitate fire fighting activities.
    Because this is not a belt air issue, we have not included any 
requirement in this proposed rule.
    10. Further research should be conducted to evaluate the impact of 
air velocities on underground fire fighting and to provide information 
on the growth and spread of mine fires involving materials other than 
conveyor belts.
    Additional research was completed by the former Bureau of Mines and 
NIOSH in these areas subsequent to the release of the BEVR report. MSHA 
used much of the published results in developing this proposed rule. 
Additional research by NIOSH concerning fire detection is ongoing, and 
the Agency remains in contact with researchers on new and developing 
technology.

IV. Discussion of the Proposed Rule

A. General Discussion--30 CFR, Part 75, Subpart D--Ventilation

    Existing Sec.  75.350 (Air courses and belt haulage entries) 
requires that entries used as intake and return air courses be 
separated from belt haulage entries and prohibits air coursed through 
belt entries from ventilating working places. The proposed rule would 
continue to allow the existing method of ventilation where belt air is 
coursed to a return air course or to the surface and not onto either 
the working sections or equipment setup or removal areas. However, it 
also would permit, with additional safeguards, the use of belt air to 
ventilate the working sections and the setup or removal areas.
    Past practice has been for a mine operator to file a petition for 
modification of Sec.  75.350 (or formerly Sec.  75.326) to seek 
approval to use belt air to ventilate working places in underground 
coal mines. To date, we have granted approximately 90 such petitions. 
About nine petitions are being processed as of the date of this notice. 
Under existing Sec.  75.350 (Air courses and belt haulage entries), 
mines opened on or before March 30, 1970, may use belt air to ventilate 
working places when it is determined that this air is needed to provide 
adequate ventilation. Currently, eight mines developed before 1970 are 
ventilated in this manner. In each of these cases, we require the mine 
operator, through the mine ventilation plan, to continue to meet at 
least the same level of protection provided in petitions that we have 
granted. Therefore, the mines developed before 1970 will not be 
exempted from the rule but must meet the new regulations.
    Our experience regarding belt air petitions has been that with 
proper safeguards, allowing belt air to ventilate working places (belt 
air) can achieve net safety benefits. Belt air usage can result in an 
increase in the quantity of air in the belt entry and other common 
entries (belt air course). This provides increased protection to miners 
against hazards created by elevated levels of methane, other harmful 
gases, and respirable dust. Significantly, this method of ventilation 
can help to balance pressures between air courses in the system. 
Present Sec.  75.350, that is identical to the former Sec.  75.326, 
requires that the mine operator ``limit the velocity of the air coursed 
through belt haulage entries to the amount necessary to provide an 
adequate supply of oxygen in such entries and to assure that the air 
therein shall contain less than 1.0 volume per centum of methane.'' In 
the past, mine operators regulated the air flowing through the belt air 
course such that most of the air flowing toward the working sections 
flowed in the intake air course. This action commonly caused pressure 
differentials to occur between the entries. Balancing the air volume in 
the primary intake air course with the air volume in the belt air 
course generally provides less pressure differential between the 
primary escapeway intake air course and the belt air course. Pressure-
balanced ventilation systems reduce the likelihood that air will leak 
from the belt air course into adjoining intake air courses, including 
the primary escapeway. Should a fire develop in the belt entry or other 
common entries, the products of combustion would tend to stay in the 
belt air course for a longer duration. This would enhance escape 
through the primary escapeway by keeping the parallel primary escapeway 
free of smoke.
    We recognize the problems created when the products of combustion 
from a fire are transported to the working sections. However, we 
believe, as did the Advisory Committee, that with proper precautions, 
belt air can be safely used to ventilate working places.
    The Advisory Committee recommended that lifelines be installed and 
maintained in all escapeways. The Advisory Committee heard testimony 
from several members of the industry to the effect that lifelines are 
beneficial. However, they also heard that lifelines placed in active 
entries were quickly destroyed due to normal mining activities and that 
repair was not considered a priority. Therefore, we have not included a 
requirement for life lines in the proposed rule. We specifically 
solicit comments on the need for and the maintainability of lifelines 
in escapeways.
    The Advisory Committee recognized the importance of protecting the 
``integrity of the atmosphere'' in the primary escapeway. In addressing 
this issue, the Advisory Committee report states, ``The Committee 
believed that it is desirable, even during normal operation of the 
mine, to maintain the integrity of the mine atmosphere in the 
escapeways by providing a positive pressure differential between the 
escapeways and the adjacent entries.'' We agree with the concept that 
separation of the belt air course from the primary escapeway is 
essential in providing miners a safe route to the surface. One method 
to help accomplish this would be to maintain the primary escapeway at a 
pressure that is higher than the adjacent entries. However, the 
Advisory Committee recognized that, sometimes, it may be difficult to 
always maintain the pressure differential in the proper direction. 
Because of the difficulty of maintaining the primary escapeway at a 
higher pressure than an adjacent air course, the Agency has decided not 
to propose this requirement. However, we recommend that MSHA and the 
mine operator should work together during the mine ventilation plan 
approval process to address this issue on a mine-by-mine basis.
    The Advisory Committee recommended that we proceed to

[[Page 3949]]

develop regulations for improved fire-resistant belting including new 
testing and approval schedules. These issues were placed in a separate 
rulemaking and are not included in this rulemaking package as discussed 
above.
    Existing Sec.  75.351 (Atmospheric monitoring system (AMS) 
established performance requirements for AMSs used to comply with 
existing Sec. Sec.  75.323 (d)(1)(ii)--Return air split alternative, 
75.340(a)(1)(ii) and 75.340(a)(2)(ii)--Underground electrical 
installations, or 75.362(f)--On-shift examination. The proposed rule 
would revise Sec.  75.351 to include requirements for the installation 
and operation of an AMS in belt entries. The Advisory Committee 
concluded that belt air course could be safely used to ventilate 
working places of underground coal mines, provided additional safety 
and health conditions are met. One additional condition is the presence 
within the belt entry of an early-warning fire detection system. This 
position is consistent with the conclusion of the BEVR Committee that 
``Directing belt air to the face provides protection equivalent to 
other ventilation methods which comply with Sec.  75.326 [now Sec.  
75.350], provided a carbon monoxide (CO) or other improved monitoring 
system is used.'' It is also consistent with our position since 1978 
requiring the use of a low-level CO detection system when we grant a 
petition to use belt air to ventilate working places.

B. Section-by-Section Discussion

Part 75--Mandatory Safety Standards--Underground Coal Mines

Section 75.301 Definitions.

    This proposed rule would add six new definitions to the list of 
definitions contained in the existing standard. As with other 
definitions in this section, the new definitions would only apply to 
subpart D--Ventilation.
    The proposed rule would define appropriate personnel as the person 
or persons designated by the operator to perform specific tasks in 
response to AMS signals under Sec.  75.351.
    The proposed rule would define an atmospheric monitoring system 
(AMS) as a network consisting of hardware and software capable of 
measuring atmospheric parameters, such as carbon monoxide and methane 
concentrations, and smoke optical density; transmitting the 
measurements to a designated surface location; providing alert and 
alarm signals to designated locations; processing and cataloging 
atmospheric data; and providing reports that can be used in the 
maintenance and calibration of the system by the mine operator. We 
believe that each of these capabilities is important and that an AMS 
used to comply with the requirements of the standard provides these 
functions.
    The proposed rule would define the AMS operator as the person(s) 
designated by the mine operator and located on the surface of the mine 
to monitor the AMS signals and to notify appropriate personnel in 
response to a malfunction, alert, or alarm signal. The Advisory 
Committee recommended that this person also be responsible for 
initiating procedures contained in the mine's fire fighting and 
evacuation plan. During discussions of the duties of the ``responsible 
person,'' the Advisory Committee characterized this person as 
``responsible for monitoring the system and, hence, initiating the Fire 
Fighting and Evacuation Plan.'' Some members of the Advisory Committee 
noted that this individual was responsible for the safety of the miners 
in the mine. Other members of the Advisory Committee, as well as 
testimony by some members of the public, argued that the responsibility 
for the safety of the miners rests elsewhere and not solely with the 
person monitoring the AMS on the surface. We believe that, although the 
AMS operator could be the person designated to initiate the actions of 
the approved program of instruction (i.e., the mine emergency 
evacuation and firefighting plan), this rule should not require that 
person to be the person in charge of implementing the approved program 
of instruction. Instead, the individual responsible for initiating 
actions specified in the fire fighting and evacuation plan should be 
identified in the approved program of instruction (Sec.  75.1502).
    MSHA includes a definition for the belt air course in the proposed 
rule. The belt air course would be defined as containing the entry in 
which a belt is located and any adjacent entry(ies) not separated from 
the belt entry by permanent ventilation controls, including any entries 
in series with the belt air course, terminating at a return regulator, 
a working section, or the surface. The proposed rule deals with the 
belt air course and not just the belt entry due to the homogeneity of 
the airstream within the air course.
    The proposed rule would define carbon monoxide ambient level as the 
average concentration in ppm of CO detected in an air course containing 
CO sensors. This average is representative of the composition of the 
mine atmosphere over a designated period of mining activity during a 
non-fire condition. We believe that an effective early-warning fire 
detection system must be based upon reasonable operating parameters, 
which include the evaluation of ambient CO levels.
    The definition of ambient level includes the term `average 
concentration.' The ambient CO levels will vary from mine to mine. For 
this reason, the ambient level and the method used to determine it, are 
required to be approved in the mine ventilation plan. Documentation 
must be provided to the district manager that the specified ambient 
level requested reflects the true conditions of the atmosphere. For 
many mines, the average concentration will be the same throughout the 
air course and will be at or near zero ppm. A mine may choose to 
designate its ambient level as zero ppm though the average 
concentration might be above zero ppm. There may be more than one 
ambient level per mine. We recognize that in some mines, CO occurs 
naturally as a characteristic of the coal seam and that higher average 
concentrations will exist. Also, diesel-powered equipment produces CO 
when operating and thus will raise the average concentration of the CO 
within the air course. Operation of diesel-powered equipment near a CO 
sensor might cause `spike' concentrations of CO to occur. In-mine tests 
have shown that these spikes account for a small part of the sample 
concentrations. Thus, if the ambient level is determined using a 
reasonable duration of time, the average will represent the 
concentration approximating that most often found in the air course.
    In order for an AMS with CO sensors to be effective as an early-
warning fire detection system, the ambient level must represent 
conditions over a broad range of mining activities. We recognize that 
the ambient level may vary from shift to shift depending on the type or 
amount of work being done. We believe approval of the ambient level and 
the method used to establish it are most appropriately addressed in the 
mine ventilation plan due to varying mining conditions and activities. 
Therefore, MSHA would continue to require that the ambient level and 
the method for determining the ambient level be specified and approved 
in the mine ventilation plan, Sec.  75.371(hh).
    For clarity, we are proposing a definition for point feeding. As 
defined by the proposed rule, point feeding would be the process of 
providing additional intake air to the belt air course from another 
intake air course through a regulator. It is our experience that point 
feeding from one intake air course to another is an effective tool for 
controlling the proper pressure differentials between entries. This is 
a useful tool that limits leakage from one

[[Page 3950]]

air course to other air courses. Sometimes providing additional air to 
the belt air course to increase air velocity in the belt entry is 
necessary to maintain the needed air velocity to assure that the 
contaminants reach the sensors. Although we acknowledge that point-
feeding may be necessary, we think that the number of point-feed 
regulators should be kept to a minimum to maintain the integrity of the 
primary escapeway. Because the point-feed regulator is a permanent 
ventilation control, the point-feed regulator must be constructed 
according to the requirements of existing Sec.  75.333(e)(1) 
(Ventilation controls) which states the method and material 
requirements for the construction of permanent stoppings and 
regulators.

Section 75.350--Belt Air Course Ventilation

    This proposed rule would revise existing Sec.  75.350 that 
prohibits air coursed through belt entries from ventilating working 
places. As used in the existing standard, the term `belt entries' 
refers to the belt air course. Under the proposed rule, the belt air 
course could be used to ventilate working sections, if the mine 
operator meets specified safety precautions. The term `working 
sections,' and not `working places,' is used in the proposed rule to 
include the area inby the loading point. Existing Sec.  75.380(g) 
requires separation of the primary escapeway from the belt entry 
beginning at the working section to the escape facilities or the 
surface. Thus, if the mine operator wishes to course belt air inby the 
end of the separation of the primary escapeway from the belt, the 
safety precautions of this proposed rule would apply.
    The proposed rule also would permit belt air to be used to 
ventilate equipment setup or removal areas if the mine operator meets 
the same specified safety precautions. If intake air passes through a 
belt entry where the belt is not operating, and is coursed onto a setup 
or removal area, the specified precautions would not apply. For 
example, during longwall setup, stoppings are removed to access the 
belt entry at certain locations. If the belt cannot be operated, the 
specified precautions are not required. However, if any of the air that 
passes through the belt entry has passed over a belt that is being 
operated or has been operated within the previous four hours, the 
specified requirements would apply.
    Separation of the belt entry from the primary escapeway entry is 
required by existing Sec.  75.380(g). Under the current regulations, 
the belt air course must be separated with permanent ventilation 
controls from return air courses and from other intake air courses. 
Section 75.350(a) of the proposed rule would require separation of the 
belt air course from return air courses and other intake air courses 
with permanent stoppings. It requires that the belt air course cannot 
be used as a return air course. It also requires that belt air cannot 
be used to ventilate the working sections or setup or removal areas 
except as specified in proposed Sec.  75.350(b). When the mine operator 
meets the conditions specified in Sec.  75.350(b), separation of the 
belt air course from intake air courses, other than primary escapeways, 
would not be required.
    Since existing Sec.  75.321 requires that the oxygen level in areas 
where persons work or travel be no less than 19.5 percent, we have not 
included a minimum oxygen requirement in this section. Also, existing 
Sec.  75.323(b) limits the methane in intake air courses, including 
belt air courses, to 1.0 percent, so we have not included this 
requirement in proposed Sec.  75.350.
    Existing Sec.  75.350 requires that the air velocity in the belt 
entries be limited to the amount necessary to provide an adequate 
supply of oxygen in these entries and to assure that the air contains 
less than 1.0 percent methane. We have not included in the proposed 
rule the provision in existing Sec.  75.350 that limits the air 
velocity in the belt entry. The intent of this restriction was to 
reduce fanning and propagation of flames in the event of a fire. Donald 
Mitchell, a mine fire expert, commented in written testimony to the 
Advisory Committee that limiting the velocity in the belt entry 
actually does not produce the intended results. Research has shown that 
higher velocities have a cooling effect on developing fires, and higher 
quantities reduce concentrations of volatile gases. In effect, the 
restriction of velocity creates additional potential hazards of smoke 
rollback, methane and hydrogen layering, and development of fuel-rich 
fires. We agree with Mr. Mitchell's conclusions and have not retained 
the requirement limiting the velocity in the proposal.
    For mines using an AMS with CO sensors for fire detection in the 
belt entry, proposed Sec.  75.351(e)(3) would require a minimum 
velocity of 50 feet per minute (fpm) in the belt entry unless the 
spacing is reduced to 350 feet between CO sensors, in which case, the 
velocity can be lower. Our experience shows that for an AMS with CO 
sensors to function properly as an early-warning fire detection system, 
the products of combustion must be transported to the sensors. This 
method of transport is the ventilation air current. The Advisory 
Committee concluded that a minimum air velocity of 50 fpm is necessary 
to ensure timely transport of combustion products to sensors. However, 
more recent research conducted by the National Institute of 
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) indicates lower velocities can 
be used if sensor spacing is reduced. In zero-flow conditions, NIOSH 
has found sensor spacing of 105 meters (344 feet) to be effective for 
early-warning fire detection (Edwards et al. 1997). We recognize that 
mines will have some air flow within the belt entries. Therefore, we 
are requiring that maximum sensor spacing be reduced to 350 feet in 
areas where less than 50 fpm is maintained to provide adequate fire 
protection capabilities.
    Proposed paragraph Sec.  75.350(b) addresses the safety 
requirements that would apply when belt air is used to ventilate a 
working section or a setup or removal area. Proposed paragraph (b)(1) 
would require that the mine operator equip the belt entry with an AMS 
installed, operated, examined, and maintained as specified in proposed 
Sec.  75.351. The Advisory Committee concluded that if installed, 
calibrated, and maintained properly, an AMS with CO and/or smoke 
sensors can perform satisfactorily. This conclusion is consistent with 
our experience with AMSs.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(2) of the proposed rule would require the 
training of all miners annually in the basic operating principles of 
the AMS, including the actions required in the event of activation of a 
system alarm. This training may be conducted as part of a miner's part 
48 new miner training (Sec.  48.5), experienced miner training (Sec.  
48.6), annual refresher training (Sec.  48.8), or training conducted as 
part of the approved program of instruction, Sec.  75.1502. The 
training should include the purpose of the system, the type of 
information that it provides, and what responses are necessary to 
specific signals from the AMS. We are aware that the effectiveness of 
any hazard warning system depends not only on the reliability of the 
system but also on the trust that the miners have in the system. A 
system that continually provides alarms when no hazard is present is of 
little value. The Advisory Committee concluded that if miners do not 
understand how the AMS works or do not trust the signals produced, the 
effectiveness of the AMS is reduced. Consequently, the Advisory 
Committee recommended, and we are proposing, that miners must be 
trained in how to respond to AMS signals when an AMS

[[Page 3951]]

is installed in mines that use belt air to ventilate working sections 
or setup or removal areas.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(3) would require that the concentration of 
respirable dust in the belt air course must be maintained at or below 
1.0 mg/m\3\ because it is now considered intake air. A permanent 
designated area (DA) for dust measurements would be established at a 
point no greater than 50 feet upwind from the section loading point in 
the belt entry when the belt air flows over the loading point or no 
greater than 50 feet upwind from the point where belt air is mixed with 
air from another intake air course near the loading point. We would 
require that this DA be specified and approved in the mine ventilation 
plan. The Advisory Committee recommended the establishment of DAs at 
appropriate locations. Establishing a DA near the loading point or 
before the mixing point would address the concerns of Advisory 
Committee members for protecting the health of persons when belt air is 
coursed onto the working section or setup or removal areas. The 
existing regulation, Sec.  70.100(b), specifies that the average 
concentration of respirable dust in the intake airways within 200 feet 
of the working faces of each section be continuously maintained at or 
below 1.0 mg/m\3\.
    Proposed Sec.  75.350(b)(4) would require monitoring of the primary 
escapeway per proposed Sec.  75.351(f) for CO or smoke within 500 feet 
of the working section or set up or removal areas, and within 500 feet 
of the beginning of the panel. In mines that point-feed from the 
primary escapeway near the beginning of a panel, the sensor required 
under Sec.  75.351(f) must be located in the primary escapeway within 
500 feet of the working section and within 500 feet of the beginning of 
the panel. The point-feed sensor required by proposed Sec.  
75.350(c)(1) may be used as the sensor at the beginning of the panel if 
it is located within 500 feet of the beginning of the panel. Alarms 
activated by these sensors would warn miners of a problem in the 
primary escapeway upwind of the working section or setup or removal 
area. These sensors will provide significant additional protection for 
a minimal cost.
    Proposed Sec.  75.350(b)(5) is included to limit the use of belt 
air to sections developed using at least three entries for development. 
This will require all existing two-entry petition requirements to 
remain in effect, and these petitions will not be superceded by this 
rule since many of the granted petition requirements exceed those in 
this proposed rule. Future two-entry mines will need to continue to 
file petitions to use belt air, since proposed Sec.  75.350(a) 
prohibits placing the conveyor belt in the return. The Agency believes 
the two-entry mining system provides a unique set of issues and needs 
to be approved on a mine-by-mine basis.
    Proposed paragraph (c) would require that when a mine needs 
additional air in the belt air course, notwithstanding the provisions 
of Sec.  75.380(g), point feeding air from any intake air course may be 
permitted if approved in the mine ventilation plan under Sec.  75.370 
and conditions set out in proposed paragraph (c) are met. MSHA believes 
that a point-feed regulator should only be used when needed and the 
number of point-feed regulators should be kept to a minimum. Point 
feeding is not meant to compensate for a poorly designed or 
inadequately maintained ventilation system. Although the Advisory 
Committee limited discussion to point feeding from the primary 
escapeway, we believe that any intake air course could be considered as 
a source for point feeding. The same requirements should apply to these 
other intake air courses in order to maintain the integrity of the air 
courses and to facilitate early-warning fire detection capability.
    When point-feed regulators are used and the air in the belt air 
course is being used to ventilate either a working section or an area 
where mechanized mining equipment is being installed or removed the 
following conditions must be met to assure the safety of the miners.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(1) would require monitoring of the air 
current that will pass through the point-feed regulator for CO or smoke 
at a point within 50 feet upwind of the point-feed regulator. Proposed 
paragraph (c)(2) would require monitoring of the belt air for CO or 
smoke at a point within 50 feet upwind of the mixing point with air 
from the point-feed regulator. If the sensor in the intake air stream 
gives an alert or alarm signal, the fire in all likelihood will be in 
the intake air course upwind of the point-feed regulator. If the sensor 
in the belt entry gives the alert or alarm signal, the source of the 
contaminants is most likely in the belt entry upwind of the mixing 
point. With this knowledge, the operator can take whatever action is 
appropriate to evacuate miners from the affected area safely and begin 
firefighting efforts.
    Proper installation and maintenance of point-feed regulators, when 
used, are critical since they are a major component of a ventilation 
system. Since point-feed regulators control the flow of air between two 
intake air courses, the provisions of Sec.  75.333(e)(1) (Ventilation 
controls) apply. Proposed paragraph (c)(3) would require that the 
point-feed regulator be provided with a means for remote closing 
without requiring persons to enter the air stream passing through the 
point-feed regulator. This would provide protection for those persons 
who may be required to close the point-feed regulator in case of an 
emergency. Remote closure is especially important if a fire starts in 
the intake air course upwind from the point-feed regulator. When the 
point-feed regulator is installed in the manner proposed, the person 
closing the point-feed regulator could approach upwind in the belt air 
course. This would enable the person to close the regulator without 
being exposed to the products of combustion coming through the point-
feed regulator. By closing the point-feed regulator under these 
conditions, the amount of contaminants entering the belt air course 
could be limited, thus permitting miners to escape.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(4) would require that a 300-fpm minimum air 
velocity be maintained through the point-feed regulator to prevent air 
reversals and reduce the potential for smoke rollback. The Advisory 
Committee considered the need to provide sufficient air quantity in the 
belt air course and recognized that sometimes supplying this air from 
the primary escapeway through a point-feed regulator may be necessary. 
The Advisory Committee determined that controlled point feeding is 
superior to ventilation of the belt air course through leakage. When 
point feeding is necessary, the Advisory Committee determined that 
point feeding from the primary escapeway into the belt air course be 
done under controlled conditions. In its discussion of point feeding, 
the Advisory Committee states, and we agree, that ``* * * while point 
feeding from the primary escapeway may be appropriate, point feeding 
into the primary escapeway from any other air course is never 
appropriate.'' However, we do not intend this position to change the 
requirement of existing Sec.  75.380(h) which permits ventilation of 
the primary and alternate escapeways from a common intake air shaft or 
slope.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(5) would require the operator to submit a 
mine ventilation plan that includes the location of all point-feed 
regulators. The installation of the point-feed regulator must comply 
with existing Sec.  75.333 and must meet the performance requirement of 
remote closure.
    In addition, proposed paragraph (c)(5) would require that the 
locations of

[[Page 3952]]

point-feed regulators must be shown on the mine ventilation map 
required by Sec.  75.372 (Mine ventilation map). An accurate and 
complete map enables both the operator and MSHA to evaluate the 
ventilation system. It would also require that the operator show the 
locations of point-feed regulators on the escapeway map required by 
existing Sec.  75.383. During escape, it is important that miners be 
aware of all aspects of the ventilation system that might affect their 
ability to exit the mine safely. Although a means for closure is 
required for all point-feed regulators, closing a regulator, as in 
making any air change during a fire, should be done only when a 
demonstrated need exists.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(6) would require an AMS to be installed, 
operated, examined, and maintained as specified in proposed Sec.  
75.351 when point-feed regulators are used. This requirement would 
greatly increase protection for miners by increasing the level of 
atmospheric monitoring of areas where intake air crosses into a belt 
air course, thereby increasing the ability of the system to detect 
hazards before they can develop into serious threats.

Section 75.351 Atmospheric Monitoring Systems

    This proposed standard sets out the installation, location, 
examination, maintenance, and operational requirements for AMSs. The 
Advisory Committee concluded that air in the belt air course could be 
safely used to ventilate working places if the mine operator meets 
certain conditions. The primary condition is the use within the belt 
entry of ``* * * a reliable and properly specified, installed, 
calibrated, and maintained Atmospheric Monitoring System * * *'' 
[Advisory Committee report, Page i]. The proposed standard sets out the 
requirements implementing that part of the Advisory Committee 
recommendation concerning the installation, calibration, and 
maintenance of the AMS to assure its reliability. The proper operation 
of an AMS is the keystone around which the safe use of belt air, and 
other provisions in this proposed rule, is based. We believe that 
current AMS technology is reliable. Since 1975, the year when an AMS 
was first required as a condition for the granting of a belt air 
petition, we have included performance criteria for an AMS as part of 
each petition granted. As AMS technology has evolved, the performance 
requirements in the granted petitions have also evolved. Performance 
requirements are included in this proposed standard.
    Proposed paragraph (a) would require proper AMS operation. Whenever 
personnel are underground and an AMS is used to fulfill the 
requirements of Sec. Sec.  75.323(d)(1)(ii), 75.340(a)(1)(ii), 
75.340(a)(2)(ii), 75.350(b), 75.350(c), or 75.362(f), the AMS must be 
operating and a designated AMS operator must be on duty at a location 
on the surface of the mine where signals from the AMS can be seen or 
heard and the operator can promptly respond to these signals.
    Proposed Sec.  75.351(a) would require that an AMS installed in 
accordance with Sec. Sec.  75.350(b) or 75.350(c) monitor the mine 
atmosphere at all times that a belt air course is used to provide 
intake air to a working section or an area where mechanized mining 
equipment is being installed or removed and miners are underground. In 
general, this requirement is independent of belt operation or coal 
production on affected sections. An exception to Sec. Sec.  75.350(b) 
or 75.350(c) would be when the belts are not operated and coal is not 
produced after a period exceeding 24 hours. Activities included in this 
exception are a production shut-down to complete non-production work 
(dead work) for several days or temporary mine closures due to market 
conditions, vacations, etc. However, it is recognized that normally it 
would be an advantage to the operator to keep the AMS operating at all 
times.
    Our experience is that many fires in belt entries start after the 
belt is stopped. As discussed previously, a review of the reports of 
reportable belt entry fires confirms this. The 24-hour period is 
included in the proposed rule to address these concerns after a belt 
shut-down and to address extended idle periods when the likelihood of a 
belt fire diminishes. The four-hour period that is found in most 
current petitions for modification is being replaced with this more 
stringent requirement that the belt be monitored for 24 hours after the 
belt is shut down. This requirement is not intended to superceded the 
requirements in Sec.  75.1103-4(e). The AMS must be operating and in 
compliance with Sec. Sec.  75.350(b) and 75.350(c) one hour prior to 
restarting the belt.
    This approach is consistent with the belt air petitions and the 
recommendations of the Advisory Committee. The proposed requirement is 
similar to existing Sec.  75.351(d)(1), which requires a person 
designated by the operator be at the surface location while anyone is 
underground. This proposed requirement clarifies when the AMS must be 
operable and when the AMS operator must be at the designated surface 
location.
    Proposed Sec.  75.351(b) would require the operator to designate a 
surface location at the mine for receiving signals from the AMS sensors 
or at another location approved by the district manager, and provide an 
AMS operator to respond to those signals when the system is used to 
comply with existing Sec. Sec.  75.323(d)(1)(ii) (Actions for excessive 
methane, Return air split alternative), 75.340(a)(1)(ii) or 
75.340(a)(2)(ii) (Underground electrical installations), or 75.362(f) 
(On-shift examination), and proposed Sec. Sec.  75.350(b) or 75.350(c) 
(Belt air course ventilation). This would allow the district manager to 
address situations where there are multiple mines in close proximity in 
one area to share one designated surface location that would provide 
the same degree of effective monitoring and early-warning protection.
    As with the existing standard, under paragraph 75.351(b)(1) of the 
proposed rule, the responsible person would have access to two-way 
voice communication with persons at working sections, at setup or 
removal areas, and at other areas included in the approved program of 
instruction, Sec.  75.1502. These areas would be equipped with two-way 
communication in accordance with existing Sec.  75.310(a)(3). These 
other areas may include belt drives, belt transfer points, underground 
dumps, and underground shops. We do not intend it to mean areas where 
persons are assigned to work on a temporary basis, such as areas where 
miners are installing auxiliary supports or where they are making 
repairs to track haulage systems.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(2) would require the operator to designate 
an AMS operator to monitor the AMS output and be at a location on the 
mine surface where all AMS signals can be responded to promptly. 
Proposed paragraph (b)(3) would require the posting at the surface 
location of an up-to-date map or schematic showing air flow directions 
and the location and type of all AMS sensors. The map or schematic 
could be displayed or stored in the AMS computer and retrieved when 
needed. By posting an up-to-date map showing the locations and types of 
AMS sensors and the intended air flow direction, the responsible person 
will be better able to identify the affected areas of the mine. The 
proposed requirement is similar to the requirement in existing Sec.  
75.351(d)(1) requiring the posting of a mine map showing the 
underground monitoring system at a surface location. We would require 
the AMS operator to notify appropriate personnel in response to a 
malfunction, alert, or alarm signal. The AMS operator could be the 
person initiating the approved program of instruction or could notify 
the responsible official for initiating the

[[Page 3953]]

plan. Mine operators are encouraged to send information from the AMS to 
alternate locations, either on or off mine property, so long as the 
original signal goes to the designated surface location. The AMS 
operator, designated by the mine operator, must be on duty while anyone 
else is underground and the monitoring requirements of existing 
Sec. Sec.  75.323(d)(1)(ii) (Actions for excessive methane, Return air 
split alternative), 75.340(a)(1)(ii), or 75.340(a)(2)(ii) (Underground 
electrical installations), or 75.362(f) (On-shift examination) apply. 
This proposed requirement also would apply to proposed Sec. Sec.  
75.350(b) or 75.350(c) (Belt air course ventilation). Proposed Sec.  
75.351(b)(3) is also consistent with our long held position as 
reflected in petitions requiring the use of an AMS.
    Proposed Sec.  75.351(b)(4) would require that the names of the 
designated AMS operators; appropriate personnel, such as section 
foreman, maintenance foreman, mine manager, and safety director; the 
responsible person referred to in proposed Sec.  75.352, and the method 
to contact these persons must be provided at the designated surface 
location. This will provide a means for any person to promptly contact 
the appropriate personnel in the event of an emergency.
    Proposed paragraph (c) would establish minimum operational 
requirements for an AMS installed in accordance with existing 
Sec. Sec.  75.323(d)(1)(ii) (Actions for excessive methane, Return air 
split alternative), 75.340(a)(1)(ii), or 75.340(a)(2)(ii) (Underground 
electrical installations), or 75.362(f) (On-shift examination). 
Proposed paragraph (c) also would apply to proposed Sec. Sec.  
75.350(b) or 75.350(c) (Belt air course ventilation). As recommended by 
the Advisory Committee, proposed paragraph (c)(1) would require that 
the AMS monitor and provide a signal at the designated surface location 
for any interruption of circuit continuity or any electrical 
malfunction of the system. Proposed paragraph (c)(1) would require the 
system to identify, at the designated surface location, the operating 
status of all sensors. As discussed previously, when an AMS is used, it 
is an integral part of the overall safety program for the mine. It is 
important that the AMS operator be aware of the status of the system. 
Without this knowledge, the AMS operator cannot appropriately respond 
to alert and alarm signals from the system. As such, it is imperative 
that it is in proper operating condition or that the operator know when 
it is not operating properly so that remedial measures can be started. 
By having a self-monitoring system, this information is more readily 
available and the operator can notify appropriate personnel.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(2) would require that the AMS automatically 
provide an alert signal at the designated surface location that is 
distinguishable from an alarm signal, when the CO or methane 
concentration reaches the established alert level. The proposed rule 
requires that the AMS operator notify responsible persons. It is 
essential that this individual is immediately aware of the existence of 
an alert condition.
    MSHA has developed a tiered response approach to address 
malfunction, alert, and alarm signals in order to require appropriate 
reaction by the AMS operator and miners. Malfunction and alert signals 
are addressed in a similar manner in this proposed rule. It is 
important to determine the cause of either the malfunction or alert 
signal and to correct it as soon as possible. The AMS operator must be 
able to tell, by sight or sound, if a signal is the result of a 
malfunction, alert, or alarm in order to respond correctly to the 
situation. Signals can be modified by assigning different tones or 
lights to the different signals so that the AMS operator can easily 
distinguish them in order to appropriately respond. Alarms on sections 
must be discernable by sight or sound by the miners so that appropriate 
actions outlined in the approved program of instruction can be started 
(Sec.  75.1502).
    MSHA proposes paragraph (c)(3) to require signals that can be seen 
and heard by the AMS operator at the designated surface location when 
the CO, smoke, or methane concentration at any sensor reaches the alarm 
level as activated automatically at the designated surface location. 
This is consistent with the recommendation of the Advisory Committee. 
This proposed provision would require giving a visual and audible 
signal for any alarm condition, including CO, smoke, and methane. It 
also would trigger initiation of the actions specified in Sec. Sec.  
75.352(a)(2) and 75.352(a)(3).
    By requiring notification at the surface location and underground, 
the proposed rule provides a degree of redundancy that will increase 
the likelihood of notification and speed up response to the alarm. MSHA 
has included this requirement in recent approved belt air petitions for 
modification and it has been successful in increasing the response to 
alarm signals.
    In addition, proposed paragraph (c)(4) would require that the 
alarms be given at all affected working sections and areas where miners 
can see and hear the signals. The intent of this requirement is to 
assure that the AMS provides the required signals notifying miners of 
hazards. The Advisory Committee heard considerable testimony about 
problems associated with notifying persons on affected working sections 
during the Marianna mine fire. Consequently, the Advisory Committee 
recommended, and this proposed rule would require in paragraph (c)(4), 
that alarms be given at locations where they can be seen and heard by 
affected miners.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(4) would also require that when methane 
alerts (1.0 %) and alarms (1.5%) are used that these signals be 
distinguishable from all other alert and alarm signals. Because 
elevated levels of methane may pose a significant explosion hazard, it 
is essential that miners are immediately aware that the alarm being 
given is the result of an elevated methane concentration.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(5) would require that the AMS automatically 
provide an alarm signal that can be seen and heard by miners in other 
locations, such as underground shops and track maintenance locations, 
as specified in the approved program of instruction (Sec.  75.1502). 
Proposed paragraph (c)(6) would require that the AMS identify the 
operational status of all sensors at the designated surface location.
    Proposed paragraph (d) would specify the location and installation 
requirements for AMS sensors. Proposed paragraph (d)(1) would require 
that AMS sensors be in the airstream they are intended to monitor to 
assure measurements are representative of the entry atmosphere. This 
provision ensures the positioning of sensors to detect a hazardous 
condition should it develop. For example, where an electrical 
installation is monitored to comply with Sec. Sec.  75.340(a)(1)(ii) or 
75.340(a)(2)(ii), the sensor should be positioned downwind in the 
airstream used to ventilate that installation. This is to provide the 
maximum potential for fire detection, since the products of combustion 
are going to follow the air current.
    Proposed Sec.  75.351(d)(2) would require installation of CO or 
smoke sensors near the center of the entry as near the roof as feasible 
in a location that would not expose personnel working on the system to 
unsafe conditions. This requirement is necessary to make certain that 
sensors are placed away from machinery, such as the conveyor belt 
itself, that could be a hazard to miners working on the AMS.

[[Page 3954]]

    Proposed Sec.  75.351(d)(2) specifies that operators not install 
sensors in abnormally high areas or in other locations where air flow 
patterns do not permit products of combustion to reach the sensors. 
This proposed requirement was developed based on work conducted by the 
former U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBM) and Agency experience with existing 
belt air petitions. This work has shown that during both smoldering and 
open combustion fires, the products of combustion stratify. The highest 
concentrations are found near the mine roof. Accordingly, the former 
USBM recommended installing sensors near the roof of the entry to take 
advantage of this stratification. Our experience shows that when 
operators do not properly position sensors, heatings or fires can go 
undetected or their detection can be delayed. For example, sensors that 
are positioned behind posts or equipment will not be exposed to the 
products of combustion contained in the air stream.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(3) requires that methane sensors be 
installed near the center of the entry at least 12 inches from the 
roof, ribs, and floor. Existing Sec.  75.351(b)(2) failed to specify 
the location of the sensor in relation to the roof, ribs, or floor. 
This proposed paragraph adds this requirement paralleling the 
requirement of Sec.  75.323(a) for conducting methane tests. Section 
75.323(d)(1)(ii) requires the use of an AMS when using the return air 
split alternative. The proposed rule also requires installation of 
methane sensors near the center of the entry in a location that would 
not expose personnel working on the system to unsafe conditions.
    Proposed paragraph (e) specifies the locations along the belt entry 
where the operator must install sensors to monitor for CO or smoke. 
Paragraph (e)(1) requires a sensor at or near the working section 
tailpiece. This sensor is to monitor the belt and it is not intended to 
monitor the section tailpiece or feeder. The tailpiece area is visited 
frequently and a sensor hung over the loading point would be subject to 
being damaged. The sensor must be installed in the air stream 
ventilating the belt entry. In longwall mining systems using belt air 
to ventilate the working section, proposed paragraph (e)(1) requires 
that the sensor near the tailpiece be located in the belt entry at a 
distance of no more than 150 feet upwind from the mixing point where 
intake air is mixed with belt air at or near the tailpiece. This 
requirement would monitor the belt up to the point that intake air 
flows into the belt entry mixing with belt air. It is not intended to 
monitor the stage loader since the tailpiece is often attended by 
miners, therefore, miners would be in the area and aware of any sign of 
a fire.
    Proposed paragraph (e)(2) requires that a sensor be located 
immediately upwind, a distance of no greater than 50 feet from the 
point where the belt air course is combined with another air course or 
splits into multiple air courses. This would require placing a CO or 
smoke sensor in the belt entry (i.e., main belt entry) just before the 
air stream splits to ventilate another belt entry (e.g., a panel belt). 
Also, if two belt air splits join, this paragraph would require a 
sensor in each air split immediately prior to joining. These sensors 
are required to promptly identify the location of a fire in either air 
split and would more precisely show the location or air split where the 
fire originated.
    Proposed paragraph (e)(3) would require sensors to be installed at 
intervals not to exceed 1,000 feet along each belt entry in areas where 
air velocities are maintained at 50 feet per minute or higher. The 
1,000-foot spacing is consistent with the Advisory Committee 
recommendation, Agency experience under the petition process, and 
research conducted by NIOSH and the former U.S. Bureau of Mines. Also, 
in areas where air velocities are maintained at less than 50 fpm, the 
sensor spacing must not exceed 350 feet. In areas where the air 
velocity in the belt entry is maintained at less than 50 fpm, the 
sensor spacing must be reduced to 350 feet.
    Proposed paragraph (e)(4) requires a sensor be placed not more than 
100 feet downwind of each belt drive unit, each tailpiece transfer 
point, and each belt take-up. If the belt drive, tailpiece, and/or 
take-up are installed together in the same air course they may be 
monitored with one sensor located not more than 100 feet downwind of 
the last component. This requirement is consistent with current 
petitions. It is intended to monitor the drive area, a potential fire 
source because of dust accumulations and electrical equipment.
    Proposed paragraph (e)(5) would allow the district manager to 
require additional sensors as mine conditions warrant. As belt drive 
configurations often require altering the belt entry, additional 
sensors may be required in this area. Also, other areas may require 
additional monitoring due to unusual entry shape or air flow patterns. 
The location of additional sensors must be specified in the mine 
ventilation plan. The Advisory Committee recommended the installation 
of a CO sensor at the inby end of the section track if the belt and 
track are in separate entries of the same air course. However, we are 
proposing to allow the district manager flexibility in determining the 
appropriate location for placement of the sensors. Paragraph (e)(5) 
would allow the district manager to require additional sensors in any 
entry that is part of the belt air course.
    Paragraph (f) specifies the location of sensors in the primary 
escapeway. If used to monitor the primary escapeway under Sec.  
75.350(b)(4), CO or smoke sensors would be located in the primary 
escapeway within 500 feet of the working section and within 500 feet 
inby the beginning of the panel. The point-feed sensor required by 
Sec.  75.350(c)(1) may be used as the sensor at the beginning of the 
panel if it is located within 500 feet inby the beginning of the panel. 
Under this situation, only one sensor would be required to comply with 
both of the requirements.
    Paragraph (g) specifies the location of sensors in return air 
splits. Proposed Sec. Sec.  75.351(g)(1) and 75.351(g)(2) retain the 
requirements in existing Sec. Sec.  75.351 (b)(1) and 75.351(b)(2) for 
monitoring return air splits using an AMS. Monitoring in returns where 
auxiliary fans are used is addressed in proposed Sec.  75.351(g)(2). 
Proposed paragraph (g)(2) would require an AMS to monitor the mine 
atmosphere for percentage of methane at two locations. Proposed Sec.  
75.351(g)(2)(i) states that in the return air course opposite the 
section loading point, or, if exhausting auxiliary fan(s) and tubing 
are used, in the return air course no closer than 300 feet downwind 
from the fan exhaust and at a point opposite or immediately outby the 
section loading point. Proposed Sec.  75.351(g)(2)(ii) would require 
that the mine atmosphere be monitored immediately upwind from the 
location where the split of air meets another split of air or 
immediately upwind of the location where the split of air is used to 
ventilate seals or worked-out areas. Placing methane sensors at these 
locations monitors the methane concentration near the beginning and the 
end of the immediate return. The AMS must provide an alarm when either 
sensor reaches 1.5 percent methane. This is the concentration specified 
in proposed Sec.  75.351(i)(1) that corresponds to the methane action 
level specified in the existing Sec.  75.323(d)(2) and provides 
adequate monitoring of the return.
    Proposed Sec.  75.351(h) retains the requirement of existing 
Sec. Sec.  75.340(a)(1)(ii) and 75.340(a)(2)(ii). Existing Sec.  
75.351(c) addresses AMS monitoring of underground electrical

[[Page 3955]]

installations for the products of combustion. Under existing Sec. Sec.  
75.340(a)(1)(ii) and 75.340(a)(2)(ii), mine operators may choose to 
monitor transformer stations, battery charging stations, substations, 
rectifiers, and water pumps for CO or smoke instead of coursing the 
intake air ventilating the structure or area housing these 
installations into a return air course. Under this alternative, 
existing Sec. Sec.  75.340(a)(1)(ii) and 75.340(a)(2)(ii) require at 
least one CO or smoke sensor to monitor the intake air ventilating the 
installation. The sensor must be located no greater than 50 feet 
downwind from the installation.
    Paragraph (i) of the proposed rule establishes and standardizes 
specific alert and alarm settings for any AMS used in accordance with 
Sec. Sec.  75.323(d)(1)(ii), 75.340(a)(1)(ii), 75.340(a)(2)(ii), 
75.350(b), 75.350(c), or 75.362(f). The alert and alarm levels proposed 
are consistent with decision and orders issued by the Administration in 
recent petitions submitted by mine operators requesting a modification 
of the standard.
    Proposed paragraph (i)(1) would require that when an AMS is used to 
monitor methane concentrations in return air splits to comply with 
Sec.  75.323(d)(1)(ii), it gives an alarm when the methane reaches 1.5 
percent and the actions specified in Sec.  75.323(d)(2) must be taken. 
An alert level is not specified for methane sensors monitoring 
immediate return splits for Sec.  75.323(d)(1)(ii). The return air 
split alternative provisions under Sec.  75.323(d) only require action 
when the methane concentration is 1.5 percent or higher. Therefore, no 
alert is specified. The alarm would be given at the working section so 
personnel can start the actions required by existing Sec.  
75.323(d)(2).
    Existing Sec.  75.340(a) requires the ventilation of specified 
electrical installations with intake air and permits options allowing 
ventilation with intake air coursed into a return air course or to the 
surface and not used to ventilate working sections, or using intake air 
where an AMS is in operation. Some options require monitoring the air 
for CO or smoke. Proposed paragraph (i)(2) would require that when CO 
sensors are used to comply with existing Sec. Sec.  75.340(a)(1)(ii) 
and 75.340(a)(2)(ii), and proposed Sec. Sec.  75.350(b) and 75.350(c), 
they provide an alert signal at 5 ppm above the ambient level and alarm 
at 10 ppm above ambient CO level. The proposed requirement is the same 
as that currently required in existing Sec.  75.351(a)(3)(i) for alert 
signals and Sec.  75.351(a)(4) for alarms and is also consistent with 
recent requirements in granted petitions for modification. MSHA's past 
experience with petitions for modifications indicates that this 
requirement is protective of miner safety.
    Proposed paragraph (i)(2) would also require that an AMS with smoke 
sensors alarm at a smoke optical density of 0.022 per meter. This is 
the same smoke optical density requirement in existing Sec.  
75.340(a)(1)(iii)(b) for smoke sensors monitoring noncombustible areas 
used to house electrical installations. However, the requirement for 
smoke sensors to provide an alarm at a smoke optical density of 0.022 
per meter is a lower alarm threshold than the existing threshold of 
0.05 per meter in existing Sec.  75.351(a)(4). We explained this 
difference in the preamble to the final rule on safety standards for 
underground coal mine ventilation (61 FR 9764, 9786-87, March 11, 
1996). We reprint the text of this explanation here for the convenience 
of the reader.

    In Sec.  75.340 (a)(1)(iii)(B) of the proposal and the preamble 
discussion on page 26371 [of Volume 59 of the Federal Register, May 19, 
1994], MSHA refers to the optical density of smoke of 0.05 per meter to 
characterize the sensitivity of smoke detectors. As discussed in MSHA's 
opening statement to the ventilation rulemaking hearings, the value 
used for the optical density of smoke is based on information provided 
from the former USBM. MSHA pointed out that based on comments received 
from the former USBM, this number is incorrect and should be divided by 
2.303 to conform to the internationally accepted term of optical 
density. No commenter took issue with this point. MSHA has made the 
correction in the final rule. One commenter suggested that optical 
densities be increased and based on an ambient to account for 
background dust. In contrast, another commenter suggested that the 
specified optical density should be reduced by half. MSHA has found 
insufficient justification to adopt either of these suggestions and 
believes that the specified 0.05, corrected to 0.022 based on comments 
from the former USBM, is the appropriate level for optical density used 
in Sec.  75.340. Existing Sec.  75.351 Atmospheric monitoring system 
(AMS), uses a level for optical density of smoke of 0.05 per meter. 
MSHA recognizes that the level in Sec.  75.351 should also be 
corrected. MSHA intends to correct the level for optical density used 
in Sec.  75.351 in a future rulemaking. In the meantime, MSHA will use 
an optical density of 0.022 per meter for purposes of Sec.  75.340.
This rulemaking therefore proposes to lower the optical density to the 
proper level of 0.022 per meter when fire detection relies on smoke 
sensors.
    For proposed Sec.  75.351, we have standardized the alert and alarm 
levels from those required by some petitions to provide a more 
practical approach to setting alert and alarm levels. Proposed 
paragraph (i)(2) would require an alert signal at 5 ppm and alarm at 10 
ppm CO above the ambient level based on former BOM research, Agency 
experience with petitions, and the Advisory Committee recommendation. 
These proposed levels will provide early-warning capability. The 
Advisory Committee recommended that alert and alarm levels for mines 
using belt air to ventilate a working place ``should not exceed 5 ppm 
and 10 ppm above ambient, respectively.'' When smoke sensors are used, 
the alarm would be provided at a smoke optical density of 0.022 per 
meter.
    The Advisory Committee also recommended that the ``District Manager 
may establish lower alert and alarm levels for AMS based on the sensor 
type and sensitivity, sensor spacing, air flow, cross-sectional area, 
and local mining conditions.'' Proposed paragraph (i)(2) follows this 
recommendation by the Advisory Committee providing the flexibility to 
lower alert and alarm levels for a high air volume in the belt air 
course. Levels below 5 ppm and 10 ppm may be necessary when large air 
quantities dilute the CO in the air course. Some fire detection 
research set alert and alarm levels based upon air velocity, cross-
sectional area, and CO generation rates from smoldering and burning 
fuel sources. This research was presented as nomographs used to set CO 
sensor settings for different sensor spacings using air velocity and 
entry area parameters. Tables were derived in an attempt to simplify 
the application of research data because the nomographs were difficult 
to use. Because of overlap in the tables, conflicting determinations 
for alert and alarm settings occurred. Though the tables provided a 
simpler method for reducing alert and alarm settings based on increased 
air flow quantities and cross-sectional areas, they have not always 
been easy to use because of variations in entry configuration and air 
velocity in an air course. MSHA believes the ventilation plan offers 
the best tool to handle special circumstances, such as when lower alert 
and alarm levels are needed due to increased air volume. We solicit 
comments on this simplified approach.
    During the discussion on the Advisory Committee Recommendation 
Number 11, a suggestion was made that

[[Page 3956]]

provisions should be provided for permitting CO alert and alarm levels 
greater than 5 and 10 ppm. One member of the Advisory Committee 
suggested that there may be times when the 5 and 10 ppm levels are not 
``practical,'' such as in mines using diesel-powered equipment which 
tend to have higher levels of CO in the air from the combustion of 
diesel fuel. Diesel-discriminating sensors have proven to be effective 
in reducing the frequency of false alert and alarm signals which are 
not the result of fire, but which are due to diesel exhaust. These 
sensors can allow operators to improve fire detection capabilities by 
lowering alert and alarm levels. Therefore, MSHA is proposing to limit 
CO alert and alarm levels to 5 and 10 ppm above ambient, respectively.
    The proposed rule, consistent with the Advisory Committee 
recommendation, does not provide for approving alert and alarm levels 
for CO sensors installed in accordance with Sec.  75.350(b)(1) greater 
than 5 and 10 ppm above the ambient level, respectively. This 
flexibility is not needed because the specified alert and alarm levels 
are above the ambient level, and because the proposed rule permits the 
use of time delays or other techniques to reduce non-fire related alert 
and alarm signals. Although one member of the Advisory Committee 
believed that higher alert and alarm levels may be more ``practical,'' 
we do not believe that they provide the protection that is necessary to 
protect miners by giving them early warning in the case of a fire.
    Proposed paragraph (i)(3) would establish alert and alarm levels 
when an AMS is used to conduct methane tests required by Sec.  
75.362(f). It would require the AMS to provide an alert signal at no 
more than 1.0 percent and an alarm at no more than 1.5 percent methane. 
This is consistent with the action levels stipulated under existing 
Sec. Sec.  75.323(c)(1) and 75.323(c)(2) for methane in the immediate 
return. Since Sec.  75.323(c) requires specific actions at these 
concentrations, personnel will receive timely notification with these 
alert and alarm levels. The proposed rule does not preclude the mine 
operator from using alert and alarm levels that are lower than those 
required by the proposed rule.
    Proposed Sec.  75.351(j)--Establishing CO ambient levels, would 
require that CO ambient levels and the means to determine these levels 
must be approved in the mine ventilation plan (Sec.  75.371(hh)) for 
sensors installed in accordance with Sec. Sec.  75.340(a)(1)(ii), 
75.340(a)(2)(ii), 75.350(b), and 75.350(c). In order for an AMS with CO 
sensors to be effective, the ambient level must represent conditions 
over a broad range of mining activities. We recognize that the ambient 
level in the mine may vary because of mining conditions and activities. 
Since mining activities vary from mine to mine, we believe the mine 
ventilation plan is the most effective tool to set the ambient level. 
Therefore, the Agency chooses to continue the requirements contained in 
the petitions for modifications that the ambient level, and the method 
for determining the ambient level, be specified and approved in the 
mine ventilation plan. This provides flexibility by allowing more than 
one ambient level within the mine, and allowing the operator to 
reestablish ambient levels for some areas. Any changes in the ambient 
level(s) must be specified and approved in the mine ventilation plan. 
This is consistent with the existing rule at Sec.  75.371(hh). Further 
information concerning the setting of an ambient level can be found in 
the discussion for the definition of CO ambient level.
    Proposed paragraph (k) would require an AMS used to comply with 
Sec. Sec.  75.323(d)(1)(ii), 340(a)(1)(ii), 340(a)(2)(ii), 75.350(b), 
75.350(c), or 75.362(f) be installed and maintained by properly trained 
personnel. It also requires that the system be maintained in proper 
operating condition. The Advisory Committee recognized, and we agree, 
that proper functioning of an AMS is directly related to the quality of 
the maintenance provided. The Advisory Committee identified and 
recommended requiring specific skills training for maintenance 
personnel, such as system operation, calibration, troubleshooting, and 
system repairs. In paragraph (k) we have proposed that trained 
personnel perform the maintenance. Although we are not proposing a 
requirement for a specific training plan for maintenance personnel, as 
we explained earlier in this preamble, this training would be conducted 
under existing training programs.
    Proposed Sec.  75.351(l) specifies that sensors must be listed and 
installed in accordance with the recommendations of nationally 
recognized testing laboratories (NRTLs) approved by the Secretary or be 
of a type and installed in a manner approved by the Secretary under the 
procedures outlined in our Program Policy Manual, Volume V for parts 
75.1101-5 through 75.1103-5. This volume of MSHA's Program Policy 
Manual can be found at http://www.msha.gov/REGS/COMPLIAN/PPM/PMVOL5J.HTM#123. See Section III. Background for further discussion on 
using accuracy and performance requirements instead of proposing an 
approval schedule. Proposed paragraph (l) provides the requirements for 
CO, smoke, and methane sensors. This section is based on the existing 
Sec.  75.1103-2(a) which requires components of automatic fire sensor 
systems in belt entries to be of a type and installed in a manner 
approved by the Secretary. Alternatively, the components are required 
to be of a type listed, and installed in accordance with the 
recommendations of a nationally recognized testing laboratory approved 
by the Secretary. This proposed rule merely expands the requirement to 
include methane sensors. The provision for approval by the Secretary is 
expected to be used for new technology, as MSHA does not have approval 
standards for these types of sensors. It is expected that NRTL approval 
of sensors will be the most prevalent vehicle for acceptance of the 
sensors. The NRTLs are expected to utilize American National Standards 
when approving or listing the sensors. A review of the standards shows 
that ANSI/ISA92.01 covers CO sensors; ANSI/ISA12.13 covers combustible 
gas detectors, including methane sensors; and ANSI/UL 268 covers smoke 
sensors. It is anticipated that the sensors will be compared to these 
standards by the NRTLs.
    Paragraph (m) of the proposed rule would permit the use of 
reasonable time delays for preventing the alert or alarm signals from 
being triggered when the AMS detects non-fire produced CO. The Advisory 
Committee pointed out a need for reducing the number of non-fire 
signals to enhance miner confidence in the AMS. They suggested the use 
of time delays or other computer techniques to reduce the number of 
alert and alarm signals. MSHA has approved ventilation plans that have 
included time delays of up to 3 minutes. This practice is consistent 
with recent petitions and has effectively reduced the number of non-
fire produced alert and alarm signals.
    We are proposing that the use and length of the time delay be 
approved in the mine ventilation plan submitted under existing Sec.  
75.370. Before approval in the mine ventilation plan, a demonstrated 
need for time delays must be documented. The total time delay for any 
given sensor may not exceed three minutes. Agency experience showed 
this time to be the maximum delay necessary to eliminate diesel-powered 
generated alert and alarm signals. Consistent with the Advisory 
Committee report, the proposed rule also would permit other computer or 
administrative techniques (such as

[[Page 3957]]

wave-cross trending, limiting vehicular traffic, and pre-notification 
of actions that could produce CO to be conducted underground) for 
reducing the number of non-fire produced alert or alarm signals 
provided they are approved in the mine ventilation plan. The use of 
reasonable time delays and other approaches, such as diesel-
discriminating sensors have been successful in reducing the number of 
alert and alarm signals from CO that are not a result of a fire or 
heating.
    We do not consider the use of time delays or other computer or 
administrative techniques as a replacement for the proper installation 
and maintenance of the AMS. For example, alert and alarm signals that 
are the result of short duration spikes caused by radio frequency 
interference could be eliminated by using shielded cable. Also, if 
higher levels of CO result from improperly maintained diesel-powered 
equipment, we would expect correction of this condition per existing 
regulations before considering approval of a time delay.
    Proposed paragraph (n) deals with the examination, testing, and 
calibration of sensors used as part of an AMS, and is consistent with 
the Advisory Committee recommendations.
    The Advisory Committee recommended that sensors should be visually 
examined each coal producing shift. Under paragraph (n)(1) at least 
once each shift when belts are operated as part of a production shift, 
mine operators would have to visually examine CO or smoke sensors and 
alarms installed in accordance with Sec.  75.350(b). We are aware of 
instances where operators have placed sensors in improper locations 
following belt moves or sensors have been damaged by roof falls or 
equipment. Sometimes these conditions have gone undetected. Since Sec.  
75.362(b) already requires an examination for hazardous conditions in 
the belt entry once each shift that the belt operates, the sensor 
examinations could coincide with the on-shift inspection. Paragraph 
(n)(1) adds the requirement that the sensors be visually examined. It 
is anticipated that generally this will not cause any additional time 
to be spent doing the on-shift belt examination. By requiring that 
sensors and alarms are examined visually each shift, we believe that 
inoperable or inappropriately placed sensors can be detected and 
corrected in a timely manner. Under existing Sec.  75.363 a certified 
person must make a record of misplaced or damaged sensors. This 
provision would continue to be in effect.
    Proposed paragraph (n)(2) would require testing of alarms for 
operation at least once every seven (7) days for an AMS installed in 
accordance with Sec. Sec.  75.350(b) or 75.350(c). Testing of alarms is 
critical to assure that they will operate properly when needed. The 
testing method is dependent upon the type of alarm installed.
    Paragraph (n)(3) would require the calibration of sensors that are 
part of an AMS installed in accordance with Sec. Sec.  
75.340(a)(1)(ii), 75.340(a)(2)(ii), 75.350(b), or 75.350(c) at least 
every 31 days. Paragraph (n)(3)(i) would require proper calibration of 
CO sensors with a known concentration of CO in air sufficient to 
activate the alarm. Paragraph (n)(3)(ii) also would require that smoke 
sensors be functionally tested according to the manufacturer's 
specifications. The nature of the functional test would be to subject 
the sensor to one of the following methods: ``(1) Calibrated test 
method, (2) Manufacturer's calibrated sensitivity test instrument, (3) 
Listed control equipment arranged for the purpose, (4) Smoke detector/
control unit arrangement whereby the detector causes a signal at the 
control unit where its sensitivity is outside its listed sensitivity 
range, [and] (5) Other calibrated sensitivity test methods approved by 
the authority having jurisdiction to assure that the sensor responds 
properly'' (NFPA 72).
    It has been our experience, and is consistent with manufacturers' 
recommendations, that the calibration schedule proposed is sufficient 
to assure proper operation. However, proposed Sec.  75.351(k) requires 
that AMSs be maintained in proper operating condition. Therefore, if 
experience at an individual mine indicates that more frequent 
calibration is necessary to maintain proper operating condition, the 
operator must calibrate the sensor at an interval sufficient to assure 
that the performance required by the proposed rule is maintained. In 
addition, each methane sensor installed in accordance with Sec. Sec.  
75.323(d)(1)(ii) or 75.362(f) must be calibrated in accordance with the 
manufacturer's calibration specifications as in paragraph (n)(iii). 
Calibration must be done with a known concentration of methane in air 
sufficient to activate the alarm.
    Paragraph (n)(4) would require certification of the accuracy of 
calibration gases as directly traceable to National Institute of 
Standards and Technology (NIST) standards. Alternatively, paragraph 
(n)(4) would permit traceability to an analytical standard prepared in 
a method traceable to NIST. This paragraph is necessary since the 
accuracy of the calibration gas has a direct bearing on the accuracy 
and functional performance of the sensor. According to NIST, 
traceability is ``* * *the property of the result of a measurement or 
the value of a standard whereby it can be related to stated references, 
usually national or international standards, through an unbroken chain 
of comparisons all having stated uncertainties.'' The NIST standard is 
a physical standard: ``Only measurement results and values of standards 
are traceable. To support a claim (of traceability), the provider of a 
measurement result or value of a standard must document the measurement 
process or system used to establish the claim and provide a description 
of the chain of comparisons that were used to establish a connection to 
a particular stated reference. All of the information regarding 
traceability to NIST is available on-line at http://www.nist.gov/traceability.
    Paragraph (o), consistent with an Advisory Committee 
recommendation, would require certain records to be maintained when an 
AMS is used to comply with Sec. Sec.  75.323(d)(1)(ii), 
75.340(a)(1)(ii), 75.340(a)(2)(ii), 75.350(b), 75.350(c), or 75.362(f). 
Records of the type proposed provide a history of system performance 
and mine operator response. They are considered essential to the 
operation of an effective system and can be invaluable in determining 
sources of recurring alert and alarm signals and system malfunctions.
    Proposed Sec.  75.351(o)(1) would require that the responsible 
person designated by the operator maintain the following records: 
record of alert and alarm signals, record of malfunctions and 
corrective actions, record of seven day test of alert and alarm 
signals, calibrations, and maintenance performed on the AMS. The 
responsible person would create these records at the end of the shift 
as these situations occur. Paragraph (o)(1)(i) would require that a 
record be kept of all alert and alarm signal activations. The required 
record would include the date, time, location and type of sensor, and 
the cause of the activation. Proposed paragraph (o)(1)(ii) would 
require a record to be made of all AMS malfunctions. This record would 
contain the date, extent, and cause of the malfunction. It would also 
include the corrective action taken to return the system to proper 
operation. As specified by this section, the records required by 
paragraphs (o)(1)(i) and (ii) would be made by the responsible person.
    Proposed paragraph (o)(1)(iii) would require that a record also be 
maintained

[[Page 3958]]

of the weekly test of alert and alarm signals, calibrations, and 
maintenance of the system. Unlike the records required by paragraphs 
(o)(1)(i) and (ii), the records required by paragraph (o)(1)(iii) would 
be made by the person(s) doing the test, calibration, or maintenance. 
These individuals have firsthand knowledge of how the sensors performed 
during their calibration and testing and any maintenance required.
    Proposed paragraph (o)(2) would require the person entering the 
record to include their name, title, date, and signature. These records 
are necessary because they will document the test, calibration, and 
maintenance history of the AMS and will provide the operator with an 
overall perspective of how the AMS is operating.
    Consistent with other requirements of this subpart, proposed 
paragraph (o)(3) would require that all records required by this 
section be maintained in a secure book that is not susceptible to 
alteration or electronically in a computer system that is secure and 
not susceptible to alteration. This section requires that these records 
be maintained separately from any other record and be easily 
identifiable by a title, such as the ``AMS log.''
    Proposed paragraph (p) would require all records to be maintained 
for one year at a surface location at the mine and made would be made 
available for inspection by miners and authorized representatives of 
the Secretary. Proposed paragraphs (o) and (p) are consistent with the 
Advisory Committee recommendations, existing regulations, and recent 
petitions. This proposed section is intended to assure that these 
records are maintained and made available, and that the appropriate 
level of mine management is made aware of conditions or problems 
requiring attention. The proposed rule also would help to assure the 
integrity of records and enable mine management to review the quality 
of the examinations. Consistent with existing standards in this part, 
we intend the term ``secure and not susceptible to alteration'' when 
applied to electronic storage to mean that the stored record cannot be 
modified. One example of acceptable electronic storage would be a 
``write once, read many'' file.
    Proposed paragraph (q) would require that all AMS operators be 
trained annually in the proper operation of the AMS. MSHA believes that 
the training program for an AMS operator should address at least two 
topics. These include:
    1. The hardware and software operation of the system, and
    2. Provisions and requirements of the ventilation plan, fire 
fighting and evacuation plan, and the requirements of this rule.
    The hardware training should at least include the following 
subjects:
    1. A complete AMS overview, including orientation with the central 
computer system and its components, the data highway, outstations, and 
sensors.
    2. Common system problems and diagnostic tools, as well as any 
special features of the system.
    The software operation training should include at least the 
following subjects:
    1. Basic computer operating systems, such as MS-DOS or Windows.
    2. CMOS setup, board(s), jumper and address settings, directory and 
file allocation, program start-up, logging in/out of system, system 
shutdown and other AMS software functions.
    3. Printing, editing sensor points, setting communication 
parameters, creating reports, and device controls.
    4. Special features of the system, such as networking, graphics 
editing, and database management.
    And, finally, AMS operators would need to be trained on the 
following issues:
    1. The provisions and requirements of the ventilation plan, fire 
fighting and evacuation plan, and
    2. The requirements of this rule.
    A record of the content of training, the person conducting the 
training, and the date the training was conducted, would have to be 
maintained at the mine by the mine operator. This record would have to 
be maintained for at least one year. This training would assure that 
the AMS operator maintains proficiency in the operation of the AMS and 
the understanding of his/her responsibility under this rule.
    Proposed paragraph (r) would require that when an AMS is used to 
comply with Sec.  75.350(b), a two-way voice communication system, as 
required by Sec.  75.351(b)(1), must be installed in a separate entry 
than the AMS. The ability to communicate is essential during emergency 
situations, such as a fire. Therefore, it is critical that at least one 
line of communication remain intact. In the event of a roof fall, fire, 
or other event in one entry that could damage either the AMS or the 
two-way voice communication, it is more likely that one of these 
systems will remain functional when installed in an alternate entry, 
thus providing an additional measure of protection.

Section 75.352 Actions in Response to AMS Malfunction, Alert, or Alarm 
Signals

    The designated AMS operator or other designated person referred to 
in Sec.  75.352(a) must be clearly identified by name or title and the 
name or title must be posted at the mine. Paragraph (a) of proposed 
Sec.  75.352 sets out the actions to be followed when any malfunction, 
alert, or alarm signal is received from a CO, smoke, or an equivalent 
sensor installed in accordance with Sec. Sec.  75.340(a)(1)(ii), 
75.340(a)(2)(ii), 75.350(b), or 75.350(c). These actions are required 
unless the cause of the alert or alarm signal is known not to be a 
hazard to the miners. If the cause of the alert or alarm signal is 
known not to represent a hazard, such as sensor calibration, or cutting 
and welding, the proposed rule would not require notification of 
affected workers. However, we would still require a record of these 
events under proposed Sec.  75.351(o).
    The Advisory Committee recommended the automatic activation of 
signals on the working section when the CO concentration reaches the 
alert level. However, we believe that automatic activation of signals 
on the working section at alert levels could potentially inhibit the 
system's effectiveness if a ``cry wolf'' syndrome develops. Therefore, 
we have not included this requirement in this proposed rule. This is 
consistent with recent belt air petition requirements. Under this 
condition, a miner receiving an alert signal from an AMS that later is 
determined not to represent a hazard may lose confidence in the system 
and become desensitized to alarms. Such a situation reduces a miner's 
confidence in the AMS and may reduce the importance of an alarm to the 
worker. We believe that the procedures outlined in proposed Sec.  
75.352(a)(1) would provide the early warning intended under an alert or 
malfunction condition. Proposed Sec.  75.352(a)(1) would require that 
when the alert level is reached or a malfunction occurs, the sensor 
involved is identified, appropriate personnel are notified, and an 
examination is immediately begun to find the cause of the alert or 
malfunction signal.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(2) would require that when an alarm level is 
reached, appropriate personnel need to be notified, including miners in 
affected working sections, in areas where mechanized mining equipment 
is being installed or removed, and in other locations specified in the 
approved program of instruction as set forth in

[[Page 3959]]

Sec.  75.1502. MSHA expects the program of instruction (mine emergency 
and firefighting plan) will be modified to reflect the actions required 
Sec.  75.352.
    Proposed paragraph (b) would require that when contaminant 
concentration levels for any CO, smoke, or equivalent sensor installed 
in accordance with Sec. Sec.  75.340(a)(1)(ii), 75.340(a)(2)(ii), 
75.350(b), or 75.350(c) exceeds the specified alert or alarm level, the 
following procedures would have to be followed unless the cause of the 
alert or alarm signal is known not to be a hazard to the miners:
    Under proposed paragraph (b)(1), when an alert signal is given, the 
sensor activated would have to be identified and an examination would 
have to begin immediately to determine the cause of the alert signal.
    Under proposed paragraph (b)(2), when an alarm is given, the sensor 
that is activated would have to be identified, and the mine emergency 
evacuation and firefighting procedures initiated as required by the 
approved program of instruction (Sec.  75.1502). At a minimum, all 
personnel in the affected area, unless assigned other duties in the 
approved program of instruction (Sec.  75.1502), would have to be 
promptly evacuated outby the next functioning sensor upwind of the 
alarming sensor.
    In developing this proposed rule, we have attempted to assure that 
the AMS used represents the state-of-the-art in monitoring. However, no 
matter how effective the monitoring system is, the safety of those 
miners affected by the event causing the alert or alarm signal is 
related to their reaction to the alert or alarm signal. We intend 
proposed paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(2) to assure that the mine 
operator acts to protect the affected miners when an AMS activates an 
alert or alarm signal.
    Paragraph (c) of proposed Sec.  75.352 addresses the action 
required in case of an alarm from a methane sensor. These would include 
methane sensors installed in accordance with Sec. Sec.  
75.323(d)(1)(ii) and 75.362(f). The specific actions required by the 
proposed rule would include identification of the sensor that is 
causing the alarm and an investigation into the cause of the alarm. 
This action must also be consistent with the requirements of existing 
Sec. Sec.  75.323(c) and Sec.  75.323(d).
    Proposed Sec.  75.352(d) addresses the actions required if any fire 
detection component of the AMS malfunctions or is inoperative. The 
proposed rule would require the operator to take immediate action to 
return the system to proper operation. It is our intention that the 
belt would not operate if all or part of an AMS installed in accordance 
with Sec. Sec.  75.350(b) or 75.350(c) becomes inoperative unless the 
actions specified in paragraph (d) are taken. The proposed standard is 
consistent with the Advisory Committee recommendation and with recent 
petitions that permit the use of belt air to ventilate working places.
    Paragraph (d)(1) would cover those instances when one sensor 
becomes inoperative. Under this condition, we would require the 
operator to station a person trained in the use of hand-held devices to 
continually monitor for CO or smoke near the inoperative sensor.
    This action is consistent with current requirements in granted 
petitions and gives the mine operator needed information on the 
atmosphere at the location of the inoperative sensor.
    Paragraph (d)(2) specifies the monitoring that would be required if 
two or more adjacent AMS sensors become inoperative. Under the proposed 
rule, a sufficient number of trained persons would be required to 
patrol and continuously monitor the area affected so that the area is 
traveled each hour in its entirety. As an alternative under (d)(2), the 
operator could station a trained person near each inoperative sensor to 
continuously monitor CO or smoke.
    These actions are consistent with current requirements in granted 
petitions and give the mine operator needed information on the 
atmosphere at the locations of the inoperative sensors.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(3) would specify actions required if the 
complete system becomes inoperative. When determining what is complete 
system failure, we do not mean that every component of the system does 
not function. It is intended that this paragraph of the proposed rule 
would apply when part of the system is inoperative to render the system 
incapable of performing its intended function. For example, if a break 
in the data transmission line occurs that does not permit sensors to 
communicate with the central processing unit (CPU) on the surface or if 
the CPU itself becomes inoperative although all underground components 
continue to operate, the entire system should be considered 
inoperative. When the entire system becomes inoperative, paragraph 
(d)(3) would require the mine operator to take immediate action to have 
trained persons patrol and continuously monitor for CO or smoke so that 
the affected belt entry(ies) is traveled each hour in its entirety. 
This means, as an example, that the affected area is traveled in its 
entirety between 1 pm and 2 pm and then traveled again in its entirety 
between 2 pm and 3 pm, and so on.
    When monitoring is conducted during times of system or sensor 
malfunction, the person doing the monitoring must be qualified to make 
these tests. As specified in (d)(4), the person would have 
communication available with the designated surface location or 
communication available at intervals not to exceed 2,000 feet. This 
could be a mine phone, telephone, trolley phone, or radio location. 
Easily accessible communication is necessary to ensure quick 
notification to the designated surface location when an alert or alarm 
level is reached.
    Paragraph (d)(5) would require the trained persons monitoring under 
this section to report the concentrations detected at the affected AMS 
sensor(s) at intervals not to exceed an hour. This action gives the 
mine operator needed information on the atmosphere at the locations of 
the affected sensors. It also requires that the person monitoring under 
this part immediately report levels of contaminants reaching the 
specified alert and alarm levels unless the cause of the contaminant is 
known not to represent a hazard. In addition, for mines using a time 
delay, persons monitoring under this section would be expected to 
report the concentrations immediately following the expiration of the 
applicable time delay.
    Paragraph (d)(6) would require that instruments used to comply with 
this paragraph have a level of detectability comparable to those 
required for AMS sensors by proposed Sec.  75.351(l). Hand-held methane 
and CO detectors are commercially available. Some AMS sensors do not 
have commercially available hand-held counterparts, so that an 
alternate instrument would be needed as proposed in (d)(7). For 
example, smoke sensors which malfunction will require monitoring with 
an alternate sensor, perhaps a hand-held CO detector, with alert and 
alarm levels to be specified and approved in the mine ventilation plan.
    Paragraph (e) requires that if the 50-fpm minimum air velocity is 
not maintained in the belt entry as required in proposed Sec.  
75.351(e)(3), immediate action must be taken to return the ventilation 
system to proper operation. It also requires that while the 50-fpm air 
velocity is not maintained, trained persons must patrol and 
continuously monitor for CO or smoke as set forth in Sec.  75.352(d) so 
that the affected belt entry(ies) is traveled each hour in its 
entirety. As discussed previously, contaminants must reach the sensors 
in order to be detected. Less than a 50-fpm

[[Page 3960]]

velocity with 1,000-foot sensor spacing is considered a system failure 
because air currents will not carry sufficient amount of contaminants 
to the sensors for detection. This is considered a system failure since 
the system is not able to provide adequate warning.

Section 75.371 Mine ventilation plan, contents.

    Section 75.371 sets forth the information that the mine operator 
must include in the mine ventilation plan. The mine ventilation plan is 
mine specific and is designed to permit safe and healthful operation of 
the mine by ensuring that ventilation is sufficient to dilute and 
render harmless hazardous components of mine air such as carbon 
monoxide and methane, and provide necessary levels of oxygen to the 
mine working environment.
    We are proposing to add six requirements to the mine ventilation 
plan. These new paragraphs, Sec. Sec.  75.371(ii) through (nn), would 
require certain information to be specified and approved. Under the 
proposed rule, the existing paragraphs (ii) through (nn) would be 
redesignated as (oo) through (vv).
    Existing Sec.  75.371(hh) requires that the mine ventilation plan 
specify the ambient level in parts per million of CO, and the method 
for determining the ambient level. The proposed rule, Sec.  75.351(j), 
does not change this requirement.
    Proposed paragraph (ii), in accordance with proposed Sec.  
75.350(b)(3), requires the locations (designated areas) where dust 
measurements would be made in the belt entry when belt air is used to 
ventilate working sections and setup or removal areas. As discussed 
under proposed Sec.  75.350(b)(3), the Advisory Committee determined 
that multiple designated areas should be established for mines using 
belt air to ventilate working places.
    Proposed paragraph (jj), in accordance with Sec.  75.350(c)(5), 
requires the location of all point-feed regulators be indicated in the 
mine ventilation plan to control the number and location of point-feed 
regulators.
    Proposed paragraph (kk), in accordance with Sec.  75.351(e)(5), 
requires the location of any additional CO or smoke sensor required by 
the district manager. Proposed Sec. Sec.  75.351(e)(1) through (e)(4) 
specify the required locations where sensors monitor CO or smoke along 
belts. We recognize instances may occur when additional sensors are 
necessary to provide the desired level of protection. In those cases, 
proposed Sec.  75.351(e)(5) would require that these locations be 
specified and approved in the mine ventilation plan. We do not intend 
that every mine ventilation plan would require additional sensors to be 
specified. Only in those cases when additional sensors are necessary 
would the mine ventilation plan contain this information.
    Proposed paragraph (ll), in accordance with Sec.  75.351(m), 
requires the length of time delays or other methods (a sophisticated 
algorithm similar to that employed by the diesel discriminator, human 
intervention, controlling or limiting diesel equipment operation) used 
to reduce the number of non-fire related alert and alarm signals from 
the AMS. Proposed Sec.  75.351(m) requires that the length of the 
delays be specified and approved in the mine ventilation plan. Proposed 
Sec.  75.351(m) also requires that computer techniques or 
administrative controls used to reduce the number of non-fire alert and 
alarm signals be approved in the mine ventilation plan. As discussed 
under proposed Sec.  75.351(m) the use of reasonable time delays and 
other computer techniques have been successful in reducing the number 
of non-fire alert and alarm signals. However, because these techniques 
should be used only when necessary (when nuisance alarms are excessive) 
and should delay the activation of alert and alarm signals for the 
shortest time possible, they should be specified and approved in the 
mine ventilation plan.
    Proposed paragraph (mm), in accordance with Sec.  75.351(i)(2), 
requires that when lower alert and alarm settings for CO sensors are 
required by the district manager they be specified in the mine 
ventilation plan.
    Proposed paragraph (nn), in accordance with Sec.  75.352(d)(7), 
requires that non-AMS sensors (the alternate detectors) be approved in 
the ventilation plan if it can be used to monitor the belt entry in the 
case of an AMS malfunction. This provision would permit the use of a CO 
detector to monitor a belt entry equipped with smoke sensors. Such a CO 
detector would be used if it meets the levels of detectability that 
would be expected if it were used in place of an AMS with CO sensors.

Section 75.372 Mine ventilation map.

    Existing Sec.  75.372 (b)(16) requires that the location of all AMS 
sensors be shown on the ventilation map. Under the proposed rule this 
requirement would be modified to require that the type of sensor also 
be shown on the ventilation map. With the anticipated increased usage 
of sensors other than CO sensors, it is important that persons who may 
be called upon to respond to alert and alarm signals have information 
available that tells them both the type and location of these sensors.

Section 75.380(g) Escapeway; bituminous and lignite mines.

    Proposed paragraph (g) of Sec.  75.380 would require that the 
primary escapeway be separated from belt and trolley haulage entries 
for its entire length, to and including the first connecting crosscut 
outby each loading point except when a greater or lesser distance for 
this separation is specified and approved in the mine ventilation plan 
and does not pose a hazard to miners. This modification to existing 
Sec.  75.380(g) allows point-feed regulators to be installed and 
monitored when additional intake air is required in the belt air course 
according to proposed Sec.  75.350(c). Exceptions to this proposed 
provision include where separation of belt and trolley haulage entries 
from designated escapeways did not exist before November 15, 1992, and 
as provided in Sec.  75.350(c).

V. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule contains information collection requirements in 
various provisions. The PREA is located on our website at http://www.msha.gov/REGSINFO.HTM. These proposed paperwork requirements are 
under OMB Control Numbers 1219-0065, 1219-0067, 1219-0073, and 1219-
0088 and have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) for review under 44 U.S.C. 3504(h) of the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995, as amended. Comments on the proposed paperwork provisions 
should be sent to both the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
of OMB and to MSHA. Comments sent to OMB should be sent to the 
Attention of the Desk Officer for the Mine Safety and Health 
Administration. Comments sent to MSHA should be sent to the Office of 
Standards, Regulations, and Variances. Addresses for both offices can 
be found in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
    MSHA estimates that the proposed rule would create 18,609 burden 
hours for the first year, 19,170 burden hours for the second year, and 
19,999 burden hours for the third year, for a total of 57,776 burden 
hours for Years 1 through 3 combined. This is associated with an 
annualized value of 19,520 hours per year and related annualized costs 
of $973,313 per year.
    On a per-mine basis, MSHA estimates the same paperwork burdens for 
both new and existing mines that use belt air.

[[Page 3961]]

However, MSHA estimates that as time goes by a greater proportion of 
new coal mines using three or more entries will choose to use belt air. 
This means that the number of mines using belt air will increase over 
time. This greater number of mines using belt air will increase the 
total burden hours and paperwork cost over time. Hence, second year 
hours and costs are greater than first year hours and costs, and third 
year hours and costs are greater than second year hours and costs.
    The paperwork burden is summarized by total annualized burden hours 
by proposed provision (Table 4) and by total annualized burden costs by 
proposed provision (Table 5).
    Numerous provisions would require action to modify the mine 
ventilation plan. Proposed paragraph 75.351(j) would require 
modification of the mine ventilation plan to include ambient CO levels 
and the means used to determine them. Proposed paragraph 75.351(m) 
would require that the mine ventilation plan be modified to show the 
use and length of time-delays of any non-fire related CO sensor 
signals. Proposed paragraphs 75.371(ll), 75.371(mm), and 75.371(nn) 
would require modification of the mine ventilation plan to show the 
length of the time delay or any other method used for reducing the 
number of non-fire related alert and alarm signals from CO sensors, the 
lower alert and alarm setting for CO sensors, and the alternate 
instrument and the alert and alarm levels associated with the 
instrument, respectively. This proposed rule would also have an impact 
on existing paperwork requirements in 75.371(hh) on the ambient level 
in parts per million of CO, and the method for determining the ambient 
level, in all areas where CO sensors are installed.
    Proposed paragraph 75.351(n)(1) would require sensors used to 
detect CO or smoke be visually examined at least once each shift, when 
belts are operated as part of a production shift. If hazardous 
conditions are found during the visual exam, then a log of such 
conditions must be filed under existing Sec.  75.363(b)--Hazardous 
conditions; posting, correcting and recording. Proposed paragraphs 
75.351(n)(2) and 75.351(n)(3) would require that a log be kept of every 
seven day alarm test and every 31-day CO, smoke, or methane sensor 
calibration, respectively.
    Proposed paragraph 75.351(o)(1)(i) would require that a record be 
made if the AMS emits an alert or alarm signal. The record would 
consist of the date, time, location and type of sensor, and the reason 
for its activation. Proposed paragraph (o)(1)(ii) would require that, 
if a malfunction in the system occurs, a record be made of the 
malfunction and the corrective action to return the system to proper 
operating condition. We (MSHA) believe that such records would be 
useful to the miner, the mine operator, and the Agency in determining 
areas of recurring problems. This would aid in ensuring proper 
operation of AMS.
    Proposed paragraph (o)(1)(iii) would require that the persons doing 
the weekly test of alert and alarm signals, the monthly calibration, or 
maintenance of the system make a record of these tests, calibrations, 
or maintenance. Proposed paragraph Sec.  75.351(o)(3) would require 
that all records concerning the AMS be kept in a book or electronically 
in a computer system, that would be secure and not susceptible to 
alteration. Proposed paragraph 75.351(p) would require the mine 
operator to keep these records for at least one year at a surface 
location and to make them available for inspection by authorized 
representatives of the Secretary and representatives of miners.
    Proposed paragraph 75.351(q) would require that AMS operators 
receive training annually and that a record of this training be kept. 
The record of training would include the content of training, the 
person conducting the training, and the date the training was 
conducted. The record would need to be maintained at the mine site by 
the mine operator for at least one year.
    Proposed paragraphs 75.352(a) and 75.352(b) would require the 
designated AMS operator or other designated responsible person to take 
actions promptly when malfunction, alert, or alarm signals are 
received. These proposed requirements are parallel to those of Sec.  
75.351(o).

                                                      Table 4.--Total Burden Hours of Proposed Rule
                                              [Summary of all burden hours, by mine size and by provision]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Annualized burden hours \1\
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Provision                                                                 Mines with 100-
                                                                     Mines with 1-19   Mines with 20-   500  employees  Mines with over    Total annual
                                                                        employees       99 employees                     500 employees     burden hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   75.350(b), implied impact on existing Sec.  Sec.   44.9,              (59.51)         (161.07)         (125.20)           (8.58)         (354.35)
 44.10, and 44.11..................................................
Sec.  Sec.   75.351(j).............................................           16.81            43.55            29.71             1.82            91.88
Sec.   75.351(j), implied impact on existing Sec.   75.371(hh).....            0.53             1.36             0.93             0.06             2.87
Sec.  Sec.   75.351(m).............................................            0.75             8.93            15.63             1.45            26.76
Sec.  Sec.   75.351(n)(1), implied impact on existing Sec.                     1.96             5.16             8.72             1.20            17.03
 75.363(b).........................................................
Sec.  Sec.   75.351(n)(2)..........................................          190.73         1,005.54         1,700.55           156.00         3,052.82
Sec.  Sec.   75.351(n)(3)..........................................          220.07         2,320.48         7,848.70           900.00        11,289.25
Sec.  Sec.   75.351(o)(1)(i) & (ii)................................            9.74           163.68           876.52           135.15         1,185.09
Sec.  Sec.   75.351(o)(1)(iii).....................................           32.28           273.30           811.03            90.40         1,207.01
Sec.  Sec.   75.351(q).............................................          135.71           512.44           752.17            63.75         1,464.07
Sec.  Sec.   75.352(a) & (b).......................................           61.62           397.99           975.91           100.75         1,536.27
Sec.  Sec.   75.371(ll)............................................            0.02             0.28             0.49             0.05             0.84
Sec.  Sec.   75.371(mm)............................................            0.05             0.14             0.09             0.01             0.29
Sec.  Sec.   75.371(nn)............................................            0.11             0.27             0.19             0.01             0.57
                                                                    ------------------
    Total..........................................................          610.86         4,572.03        12,895.44         1,442.07       19,520.40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Source: Chapter VII of the Preliminary Regulatory Economic Analysis.


[[Page 3962]]


                                                      Table 5.--Total Burden Costs of Proposed Rule
                                              [Summary of all burden costs, by mine size and by provision]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Annualized burden costs \1\
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Provision                                                                 Mines with 100-
                                                                     Mines with 1-19   Mines with 20-   500 employees   Mines with over    Total annual
                                                                        employees       99 employees                     500 employees     burden hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   75.350(b), implied impact on existing Sec.  Sec.   44.9,             ($3,268)         ($8,846)         ($6,876)           ($471)        ($19,461)
 44.10, and 44.11..................................................
Sec.  Sec.   75.351(j).............................................             923            2,391            1,632              100            5,046
Sec.   75.351(j), implied impact on existing Sec.  Sec.                          29               75               51                3              158
 75.371(hh)........................................................
Sec.  Sec.   75.351(m).............................................              41              490              858               80            1,470
Sec.  Sec.   75.351(n)(1), implied impact on existing Sec.                       55              145              245               34              478
 75.363(b).........................................................
Sec.  Sec.   75.351(n)(2)..........................................          10,475           55,224           93,394            8,568          167,661
Sec.  Sec.   75.351(n)(3)..........................................          12,086          127,441          431,051           49,428          620,005
Sec.  Sec.   75.351(o)(1)(i) & (ii)................................             273            4,595           24,604            3,794           33,266
Sec.  Sec.   75.351(o)(1)(iii).....................................           1,773           15,010           44,542            4,965           66,289
Sec.  Sec.   75.351(q).............................................           5,877           19,836           27,260            2,212           55,185
Sec.  Sec.   75.352(a) & (b).......................................           1,730           11,171           27,394            2,828           43,123
Sec.  Sec.   75.371(ll)............................................               1               15               27                2               46
Sec.  Sec.   75.371(mm)............................................               3                7                5                0               16
Sec.  Sec.   75.371(nn)............................................               6               15               10                1               32
                                                                    ------------------
    Total..........................................................          30,004          227,570          644,196           71,543         973,313
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Source: Chapter VII of the Preliminary Regulatory Economic Analysis.

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

    Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735) as amended by E.O. 13258 
(Amending Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review (67 
FR 9385)) requires that regulatory agencies assess both the costs and 
benefits of regulations. MSHA has determined that this proposed rule 
would not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy 
and that, therefore, it is not an economically ``significant regulatory 
action'' pursuant to Sec.  3(f) of E.O. 12866. However, we have 
determined that this proposed rule is significant under Sec.  3(f) of 
E.O. 12866, which defines a significant regulatory action as one that 
may ``* * * raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.'' MSHA completed a Preliminary Regulatory Economic 
Analysis (PREA) in which the economic impact of the rule is estimated. 
The PREA is available from MSHA and is summarized as follows.

A. Population-at-Risk

    MSHA estimates that this rulemaking would initially affect 
approximately 11,313 miners at 88 underground coal mines which choose 
to use belt air at the working places during the first year of the 
proposed rule. MSHA also estimates that this rulemaking would 
additionally affect approximately 2,358 miners at 30 underground coal 
mines which choose to point feed the belt air, but do not use belt air 
at the working places, during the first year of the proposed rule. 
Accordingly, MSHA estimates that this rulemaking would affect a total 
of approximately 13,671 miners at 118 underground coal mines during the 
first year of the proposed rule.

B. Benefits

    MSHA has qualitatively determined that the proposed rule, to permit 
use of belt air at the working places, yields net health and safety 
benefits relative to the existing rule, which does not permit use of 
belt air at the working places. The proposed rule does not create any 
health or safety hazards relative to current petition practice, which 
also permits use of belt air at the working places.
    The main requirement of the proposed rule is that the mine operator 
who chooses to use belt air must install an atmospheric monitoring 
system (AMS) in the belt entry for fire detection. The AMS composed of 
CO or smoke sensors provides early warning fire detection that is 
superior to that provided by point-type heat sensors. This added level 
of protection is beneficial to both workers and the mine owner.
    The AMS is beneficial to the mine operator because early warning of 
a mine fire provides maximal opportunity for extinquishing the fire. An 
uncontrolled mine fire can damage or destroy a coal mine and can delay 
or prevent future mining of coal in the affected mine. The AMS is 
beneficial to workers, because the early warning of fire from an AMS 
permits more time for miners to escape. Early warning from the AMS also 
gives the firefighting crew more time to fight or extinguish a fire 
before it creates a serious mine fire accident or disaster.
    The proposed rule utilizes the common interests of both workers and 
mine owners to avoid mine fires, and particularly to avoid fires that 
may result in a serious mine fire accident. By reducing regulatory 
hurdles to the use of belt air at the working places, the proposed rule 
would provide additional encouragement for mine operators to install an 
AMS. The installation of AMS in additional mines would reduce the risk 
of mine fire accidents that may injure or kill miners or severely 
damage mine property.
    In addition, MSHA's experience with belt air petitions indicates 
that, with proper precautions, allowing belt air to ventilate working 
places can achieve net health and safety benefits. Belt air usage can 
result in an increase in the quantity of air in the belt entry and 
other common entries (belt air course). This provides increased 
protection to miners against hazards created by elevated levels of 
methane, other harmful gases, and respirable dust.
    Prevention of mine fires can also benefit local communities. In the 
event a mine fire is uncontrolled, persons living in the area of the 
mine may need to be evacuated for several days due to the smoke and 
toxic fumes escaping to the surface from a mine fire. In addition, 
there can be long-term adverse economic impacts on a community

[[Page 3963]]

when a mine fire shuts down a coal mine.

C. Compliance Costs

    The proposed rule revises various sections of part 75, which 
regulates underground coal mines. These revised sections include Sec.  
75.301 Definitions, Sec.  75.350 Air courses and belt haulage entries 
(title revised to Belt air course ventilation), Sec.  75.351 
Atmospheric monitoring systems, Sec.  75.352 Return air courses (title 
revised to Actions in response to AMS alert and alarm signals or 
malfunctions), Sec.  75.371 Mine ventilation plan, Sec.  75.372 Mine 
ventilation map, and Sec.  75.380(g) Escapeway; bituminous and lignite 
mines.
    The main substantive changes of the proposed rule are for three-or-
more-entry mines that voluntarily choose to use belt air as intake air 
to ventilate the working places of the coal mine. Three-or-more-entry 
mines that choose to ventilate the working places with belt air are 
required to use an atmospheric monitoring system (AMS) to assure worker 
safety. A secondary substantive change applies to three-or-more entry 
mines that voluntarily choose to point feed the belt air course.
    There are no substantive changes in the proposed rule that apply to 
any mine that chooses not to use belt air at the working places, and 
that chooses not to point feed the belt air. Two-entry mines are also 
not impacted by the proposed rule.
    Because all changes impact only mines that voluntarily undertake 
certain actions, there are only net cost savings from the proposed 
rule. This is because MSHA presumes that no mine operator would install 
and use an AMS in order to use belt air unless the mine operator 
anticipated cost savings as a result.
    The primary cost savings from the proposed rule accrue to 
underground coal mines that choose to use belt air at the working 
places. Total cost savings from this source are estimated at 
approximately $650,000 per year. These cost savings for the belt-air 
mines also include cost savings from point feeding.
    Secondary cost savings of the proposed rule accrue to mines that 
choose to point feed the belt air, but choose not to use belt air at 
the working sections. For these mines, the cost savings from point 
feeding are estimated at $31 thousand per year. In total, the cost 
savings from the proposed rule are approximately $680,000 per year.

D. Economic Impact

    The proposed rule will enhance safety in belt air mines while 
utilizing the common incentive of both workers and mine owners to avoid 
mine fires, and particularly to avoid fires that may result in a 
serious mine fire accident.
    MSHA believes that the estimated cost savings of this proposed rule 
are conservative because contested petition costs were not included in 
the preliminary economic analysis. If a petition is contested, the 
costs to the petitioner could increase by as much as $100,000.
    The proposed rule provides additional encouragement for mine 
operators to install an AMS by reducing regulatory hurdles to the use 
of belt air at the working places. The installation of AMSs in 
additional mines will reduce the risk of mine fire accidents that may 
injure or kill miners or severely damage mine property. Mine operators 
are inherently interested in avoiding these catastrophic incidents that 
could result in the lost of the mine. This proposed rule would mandate 
the proper installation and maintenance of AMSs that would serve to 
further protect mine property from these catastrophic incidents.
    MSHA has concluded that the proposed rule will have only a small 
(but favorable) effect on coal output, price, and profitability.

E. Feasibility

    MSHA has concluded that the requirements of the proposed rule are 
both technologically and economically feasible.
    This proposed rule is not a technology-forcing standard and does 
not involve activities on the frontiers of scientific knowledge. The 
technology to monitor the mine atmosphere and to alert miners of 
hazards involve available, off-the-shelf technologies that are 
currently being used in many mines. Also, standard procedures used to 
safeguard the safety of miners are approved by the Agency through the 
mine's fire fighting and evacuation plan. Other provisions of the 
proposed rule will reduce petition requirements.
    The proposed rule is clearly economically feasible insofar as it 
will reduce costs for the mining industry while increasing the use of 
AMSs to monitor the mine atmosphere. The primary cost savings of 
$654,000 per year from the proposed rule come from the ability of 
underground coal mines to use belt air. Approximately 70 percent of 
these cost savings are generated from reduced shaft-sinking costs for 
new mines. The other 30 percent of cost savings come from energy cost 
savings from reductions in ventilation fan power (25%) and elimination 
of the petition for modification process (legal and administrative 
costs--5%). The secondary cost savings of $31,000 per year from the 
proposed rule come from mines that choose not to use belt air to 
ventilate working sections but that do take advantage of the point-
feeding provision that applies to all three-or-more entry mines. In 
total, the cost savings from the proposed rule are $685,728 per year.
    The proposed rule would provide for a safe mining environment and 
would facilitate the use of technologically advanced fire-detection 
systems. In addition, there would no longer be a time delay for 
approval due to the petition process. Mine operators could use belt air 
to ventilate working sections as soon as they are in compliance with 
the rule.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act (SBREFA)

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by SBREFA, 
requires regulatory agencies to consider a rule's impact on small 
entities. For the purposes of the RFA and this preliminary 
determination, MSHA has analyzed the impact of the proposed rule and 
has determined that this proposed rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities that are 
affected by this rulemaking.
    MSHA will mail a copy of the proposed rule, including the preamble 
and regulatory flexibility certification statement, to all underground 
coal mine operators and miners' representatives. The proposed rule will 
also be placed on MSHA's Internet Homepage at http://www.msha.gov, 
under Statutory and Regulatory Information.
    In accordance with RFA and its amendments at 5 U.S.C. 605(b), MSHA 
has determined that this proposed rule will not have a significant 
adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. No 
small governmental jurisdictions or nonprofit organizations will be 
affected.
    The RFA, as amended, at 5 U.S.C. Sec.  605(b) also requires MSHA to 
include in the proposed rule a factual basis for this preliminary 
determination. This information must be published in the Federal 
Register.
Factual Basis for Certification
    The Agency compared the gross costs of the rule for small mines in 
each sector to the revenue for that sector for both size categories 
analyzed (MSHA and Small Business Administration ``small entity'' 
definitions). Given that the gross compliance costs for small mines is 
substantially less than 1 percent of revenue and that net costs are

[[Page 3964]]

negative, MSHA concludes that there is no significant cost impact of 
the rule on small entities. For both definitions of a small mine, the 
net cost of the proposed rule is negative. Since the proposed rule 
results in net cost savings, there would not be any burden placed on 
small mine operators. Accordingly, MSHA preliminarily certifies that 
there is no significant impact on a substantial number of small coal 
mining entities that are affected by this rule.

VII. Other Regulatory Analyses

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 (58 FR 58093), this proposed rule does not include any 
Federal mandate that may 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 13132 (Federalism)

    MSHA has reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with Executive 
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255) regarding federalism, and has determined that 
it does not have ``federalism implications.'' The proposed rule would 
not ``have substantial direct effects 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.'' There are no underground coal mines owned or operated by 
any State governments.

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

    In accordance with Executive Order 13045, 62 FR 19885, MSHA has 
evaluated the environmental health and safety effect of the proposed 
rule on children. The Agency has determined that the proposed rule will 
have no effect on children.

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

    In accordance with Executive Order 13175 (63 FR 27655), MSHA 
certifies that the proposed rule does not impose substantial direct 
compliance costs on Indian tribal governments. MSHA is not aware of any 
Indian tribal governments which either own or operate underground coal 
mines.

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

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 12630, 53 FR 
8859, because it does not involve implementation of a policy with 
takings implications.

F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    The Agency has reviewed Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729) and 
determined that this proposed rule would not unduly burden the Federal 
court system. The proposed rule has been written so as to provide a 
clear legal standard for affected conduct, and has been reviewed 
carefully to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguities.

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

    In accordance with Executive Order 13211, 66 FR 28355, MSHA has 
reviewed this proposed rule for its energy impacts. MSHA has determined 
that this proposed rule would not have any adverse effects on energy 
supply, distribution, or use.

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 Chapter V of 
the PREA, 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 final rule, all existing petitions for 
modification for belt air used to ventilate working places under Sec.  
75.350 in mines with sections developed using three or more entries 
will be superseded. Mine operators will thereafter be required to 
comply with the provisions of the final rule. However, all existing 
two-entry petition requirements will remain in effect and will not be 
superseded by this rule. Future two-entry mines will need to continue 
to file petitions to use belt air, since proposed Sec.  75.350(a) 
prohibits placing the conveyor belt in the return.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 75

    Communications equipment, Emergency medical services, Explosives, 
Fire prevention, Mandatory safety standards, Mine safety and health, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Underground coal mines, 
Ventilation.

    Dated: January 13, 2003.
Dave D. Lauriski,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health.
    It is proposed to amend, for the reasons set out in the preamble, 
chapter I of title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 75--MANDATORY SAFETY STANDARDS--UNDERGROUND COAL MINES

    1. The authority citation for part 75 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811.

    2. Amend Sec.  75.301 by adding the following definitions:


Sec.  75.301  Definitions.

* * * * *
    AMS operator. The person(s) designated by the mine operator located 
on the surface of the mine who monitors the malfunction, alert, or 
alarm signals of the AMS and notifies appropriate personnel to these 
signals.
* * * * *
    Appropriate Personnel. The person or persons designated by the 
operator to perform specific tasks in response to AMS signals.
* * * * *
    Atmospheric Monitoring System (AMS).
    (1) A network consisting of hardware and software meeting the 
requirements of Sec. Sec.  75.351 and 75.1103-2 and capable of:
    (i) Measuring atmospheric parameters;
    (ii) Transmitting the measurements to a designated surface 
location;
    (iii) Providing alert and alarm signals;
    (iv) Processing and cataloging atmospheric data; and,
    (v) Providing reports.
    (2) Early-warning fire detection systems using newer technology 
that provide equal or greater protection, as determined by the 
Secretary, will be considered an atmospheric monitoring system for the 
purposes of this subpart.
* * * * *
    Belt air course. The entry in which a belt is located and any 
adjacent entry(ies) not separated from the belt entry by permanent 
ventilation controls, including any entries in series with the belt 
entry, terminating at a return regulator, a section loading point, or 
the surface.
* * * * *

[[Page 3965]]

    Carbon monoxide ambient level. The average concentration of carbon 
monoxide detected in an air course containing carbon monoxide sensors. 
This average is representative of the composition of the mine 
atmosphere during a non-fire condition.
* * * * *
    Point feeding. The process of providing additional intake air to 
the belt air course from another intake air course through a regulator.
* * * * *
    3. Revise Sec.  75.350 to read as follows:


Sec.  75.350  Belt air course ventilation.

    (a) The belt air course must not be used as a return air course; 
and except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the belt air 
course must not be used to provide air to working sections or to areas 
where mechanized mining equipment is being installed or removed. The 
belt air course must be separated with permanent ventilation controls 
from return air courses and from other intake air courses except as 
provided in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (b) Air from a belt air course may be used to ventilate a working 
section or an area where mechanized mining equipment is being installed 
or removed, provided the following requirements are met:
    (1) The belt entry must be equipped with an AMS installed, 
operated, examined, and maintained as specified in Sec.  75.351.
    (2) All miners, including newly hired miners must be trained 
annually in the basic operating principles of the AMS, including the 
actions required in the event of activation of a system alarm. This 
training may be conducted as part of a miner's 30 CFR part 48 new miner 
training (Sec.  48.5), experienced miner training (Sec.  48.6), or 
annual refresher training (Sec.  48.8).
    (3) The average concentration of respirable dust in the belt air 
course (the intake air course) must be maintained at or below 1.0 mg/
m\3\. A permanent designated area (DA) for dust measurements must be 
established at a point no greater than 50 feet upwind from the section 
loading point in the belt entry when the belt air flows over the 
loading point or no greater than 50 feet upwind from the point where 
belt air is mixed with air from another intake air course near the 
loading point. The DA must be specified and approved in the ventilation 
plan.
    (4) The primary escapeway must be monitored for carbon monoxide or 
smoke as specified in Sec.  75.351(f).
    (5) The section must be developed with three or more entries.
    (c) Notwithstanding the provisions of Sec.  75.380(g), additional 
intake air may be added to the belt air course through a point-feed 
regulator. The location and use of point feeds must be approved in the 
mine ventilation plan. If the air through the point feed enters a belt 
air course which is used to ventilate a working section or an area 
where mechanized mining equipment is being installed or removed, the 
following conditions must be met:
    (1) The air current that will pass through the point-feed regulator 
must be monitored for carbon monoxide or smoke at a point within 50 
feet upwind of the point-feed regulator;
    (2) The air in the belt air course must be monitored for carbon 
monoxide or smoke upwind of the point-feed regulator. This sensor must 
be in the belt air course within 50 feet of the mixing point where air 
flowing through the point-feed regulator mixes with the belt air;
    (3) The point-feed regulator must be provided with a means to close 
the regulator from either air course without requiring a person to 
enter the air stream passing through the point-feed regulator;
    (4) A minimum air velocity of 300 feet per minute must be 
maintained through the point-feed regulator.
    (5) The location of a point-feed regulator(s) must be approved in 
the mine ventilation plan and the location(s) shown on the mine 
ventilation map; and
    (6) An AMS must be installed, operated, examined, and maintained as 
specified in Sec.  75.351.
    4. Revise Sec.  75.351, to read as follows:


Sec.  75.351  Atmospheric monitoring systems.

    (a) AMS operation. Whenever personnel are underground and an AMS is 
being used to fulfill the requirements of Sec. Sec.  75.323(d)(1)(ii), 
75.340(a)(1)(ii), 75.340(a)(2)(ii), 75.350(b), 75.350(c), or 75.362(f), 
the AMS must be operating and a designated AMS operator must be on duty 
at a location on the surface of the mine where signals from the AMS can 
be seen and heard and the operator can promptly respond to these 
signals. However, for extended idle periods exceeding 24 hours, when 
the belt is not operating, the requirements of Sec. Sec.  75.350(b) and 
75.350(c) will not apply after the initial 24 hour idle period. All 
provisions of this section will become applicable one hour prior to 
belt start-up following this idle period.
    (b) Designated surface location and AMS operator. When an AMS is 
used to comply with Sec. Sec.  75.323(d)(1)(ii), 75.340(a)(1)(ii), 
75.340(a)(2)(ii), 75.350(b), 75.350(c), or 75.362(f), the following 
requirements apply:
    (1) The mine operator must designate a surface location at the mine 
or at another location approved by the district manager where signals 
from the AMS will be received and two-way voice communication is 
maintained with each working section, areas where mechanized equipment 
is being installed or removed, and other areas designated in the 
approved program of instruction (Sec.  75.1502).
    (2) The mine operator must designate an AMS operator to monitor the 
AMS signals and be at a location on the mine surface where the AMS 
operator can promptly respond to all signals from the AMS.
    (3) A map or schematic must be provided at the designated surface 
location and updated daily that shows the locations and type of AMS 
sensor at each location and the intended air flow direction at these 
locations.
    (4) The names of the designated AMS operators, appropriate 
personnel, and responsible persons referred to in Sec.  75.352, and the 
method to contact these persons must be provided at the designated 
surface location.
    (c) Minimum operating requirements. AMSs used to comply with 
Sec. Sec.  75.323(d)(1)(ii), 75.340(a)(1)(ii), 75.340(a)(2)(ii), 
75.350(b), 75.350(c), or 75.362(f) must:
    (1) Automatically provide a signal that can be seen or heard by the 
AMS operator at the designated surface location for any interruption of 
circuit continuity and any electrical malfunction of the system.
    (2) Automatically provide an alert signal that can be seen or heard 
by the AMS operator at the designated surface location and is 
distinguishable from alarm signals, when the carbon monoxide 
concentration or methane concentration at any sensor reaches the alert 
level as specified in paragraph (i) of this section.
    (3) Automatically provide signals that can be seen and heard by the 
AMS operator at the designated surface location when the carbon 
monoxide, smoke, or methane concentration at any sensor reaches the 
alarm level as specified in paragraph (i) of this section.
    (4) Automatically provide visual and audible alarm signals at all 
affected working sections and at all affected areas where mechanized 
equipment is being installed or removed when the carbon monoxide, 
smoke, or methane concentration at any sensor reaches the alarm level 
as specified in paragraph (i) of this section. The signals must be 
capable of being seen and heard by miners working at these locations.

[[Page 3966]]

Methane alarm signals must be distinguishable from other signals.
    (5) Automatically provide an alarm signal that can be seen and 
heard by miners in other locations as specified in the approved program 
of instruction (Sec.  75.1502) when the carbon monoxide, smoke, or 
methane concentration at any sensor reaches the alarm level as 
specified in paragraph (i) of this section.
    (6) Identify at the designated surface location the operational 
status of all sensors.
    (d) Location and installation of AMS sensors. (1) All AMS sensors, 
as specified in paragraphs (e) through (h) of this section, must be 
located such that measurements are representative of the atmosphere.
    (2) Carbon monoxide or smoke sensors must be installed near the 
center of the entry, as near the roof as feasible in a location that 
would not expose personnel working on the system to unsafe conditions. 
Sensors must not be located in abnormally high areas or in other 
locations where air flow patterns do not permit products of combustion 
to be carried to the sensors.
    (3) Methane sensors must be installed near the center of the entry, 
at least 12 inches from the roof, ribs, and floor, in a location that 
would not expose personnel working on the system to unsafe conditions.
    (e) Location of sensors--belt air course. In addition to the 
requirements of paragraph (d) of this section, any AMS used to monitor 
belt air courses under Sec.  75.350(b) must have sensors to monitor for 
carbon monoxide or smoke located:
    (1) At or near the working section belt tailpiece in the air stream 
ventilating the belt entry. In longwall mining systems the sensor must 
be located upwind in the belt entry at a distance no greater than 150 
feet from the mixing point where intake air is mixed with the belt air 
at or near the tailpiece;
    (2) Upwind, a distance no greater than 50 feet from the point where 
the belt air course is combined with another air course or splits into 
multiple air courses;
    (3) At intervals not to exceed 1,000 feet along each belt entry in 
areas where air velocities are maintained at 50 feet per minute or 
higher. In areas along each belt entry where air velocities are less 
than 50 feet per minute, the sensor spacing must not exceed 350 feet;
    (4) Not more than 100 feet downwind of each belt drive unit, each 
tailpiece transfer point, and each belt take-up. If the belt drive, 
tailpiece, and/or take-up are installed together in the same air course 
they may be monitored with one sensor located not more than 100 feet 
downwind of the last component; and
    (5) At other locations in any entry that is part of the belt air 
course as required and specified in the ventilation plan.
    (f) Locations of sensors--the primary escapeway. If used to monitor 
the primary escapeway under Sec.  75.350(b)(4), carbon monoxide or 
smoke sensors must be located in the primary escapeway within 500 feet 
of the working section and within 500 feet inby the beginning of the 
panel. The point-feed sensor required by Sec.  75.350(c)(1) may be used 
as the sensor at the beginning of the panel if it is located within 500 
feet inby the beginning of the panel.
    (g) Location of sensors--return air splits. (1) If used to monitor 
return air splits under Sec.  75.362(f), a methane sensor must be 
installed in the return split of air between the last working place, or 
longwall or shortwall face, ventilated by that split of air and the 
junction of the return air split with another air split, seal, or 
worked out area.
    (2) If used to monitor a return air split under Sec.  
75.323(d)(1)(ii), the methane sensors must be installed at the 
following locations:
    (i) In the return air course opposite the section loading point, 
or, if exhausting auxiliary fan(s) are used, in the return air course 
no closer than 300 feet downwind from the fan exhaust and at a point 
opposite or immediately outby the section loading point; and
    (ii) Immediately upwind from the location where the return air 
split meets another split of air or immediately upwind of the location 
where a split of air is used to ventilate seals or worked-out areas.
    (h) Location of sensors--electrical installations. When monitoring 
the intake air ventilating underground transformer stations, battery 
charging stations, substations, rectifiers, or water pumps under Sec.  
75.340(a)(1)(ii) or Sec.  75.340(a)(2)(ii), at least one sensor must be 
installed to monitor the mine atmosphere for carbon monoxide or smoke, 
located downwind and not greater than 50 feet from the electrical 
installation being monitored.
    (i) Establishing alert and alarm levels. An AMS installed in 
accordance with the following sections must initiate alert and alarm 
signals at the specified levels, as indicated:
    (1) For Sec.  75.323(d)(1)(ii) alarm at no more than 1.5% methane.
    (2) For Sec. Sec.  75.340(a)(1)(ii), 75.340(a)(2)(ii), 75.350(b), 
and 75.350(c), alert at 5 ppm carbon monoxide above the ambient level 
and alarm at 10 ppm carbon monoxide above the ambient level when carbon 
monoxide sensors are used; and alarm at a smoke optical density of 
0.022 per meter when smoke sensors are used. Reduced alert and alarm 
settings approved by the district manager may be required for carbon 
monoxide sensors identified in the mine ventilation plan, Sec.  
75.371(mm).
    (3) For Sec.  75.362(f), alert at no more than 1.0% methane and 
alarm at no more than 1.5% methane.
    (j) Establishing carbon monoxide ambient levels. Carbon monoxide 
ambient levels and the means to determine these levels must be approved 
in the mine ventilation plan (Sec.  75.371(hh)) for monitors installed 
in accordance with Sec. Sec.  75.340(a)(1)(ii), 75.340(a)(2)(ii), 
75.350(b), and 75.350(c).
    (k) Installation and maintenance. An AMS installed in accordance 
with Sec. Sec.  75.323(d)(1)(ii), 75.340(a)(1)(ii), 75.340(a)(2)(ii), 
75.350(b), 75.350(c), or 75.362(f) must be installed and maintained by 
personnel trained in the installation and maintenance of the system. 
The system must be maintained in proper operating condition.
    (l) Sensors. Sensors used to monitor for carbon monoxide, methane, 
and smoke must be either of a type listed and installed in accordance 
with the recommendations of a nationally recognized testing laboratory 
approved by the Secretary; or these sensors must be of a type, and 
installed in a manner, approved by the Secretary.
    (m) Time delays. When a demonstrated need exists, time delays may 
be incorporated into the AMS. These time delays must only be used to 
account for non-fire related carbon monoxide sensor signals. The use 
and length of any time delays, or other techniques or methods which 
eliminate or reduce the need for time delays, must be specified and 
approved in the mine ventilation plan. These time delays are limited to 
no more than three minutes.
    (n) Examination, testing, and calibration. (1) At least once each 
shift when belts are operated as part of a production shift, sensors 
used to detect carbon monoxide or smoke in accordance with Sec.  
75.350(b) and alarms installed in accordance with Sec.  75.350(b) must 
be visually examined.
    (2) At least once every seven days, alarms for AMS installed in 
accordance with Sec. Sec.  75.350(b) and 75.350(c) must be functionally 
tested for proper operation.
    (3) At intervals not to exceed 31 days--
    (i) Each carbon monoxide sensor installed in accordance with 
Sec. Sec.  75.340(a)(1)(ii), 75.340(a)(2)(ii), 75.350(b), or 75.350(c) 
must be calibrated in accordance with the manufacturer's calibration 
specifications. Calibration must be done

[[Page 3967]]

with a known concentration of carbon monoxide in air sufficient to 
activate the alarm;
    (ii) Each smoke sensor installed in accordance with Sec. Sec.  
75.340(a)(1)(ii), 75.340(a)(2)(ii), 75.350(b), or 75.350(c) must be 
functionally tested in accordance with the manufacturer's calibration 
specifications;
    (iii) Each methane sensor installed in accordance with Sec. Sec.  
75.323(d)(1)(ii) or 75.362(f) must be calibrated in accordance with the 
manufacturer's calibration specifications. Calibration must be done 
with a known concentration of methane in air sufficient to activate an 
alarm.
    (4) Gases used for the testing and calibration of AMS sensors must 
be traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
reference standard for the specific gas. When these reference standards 
are not available for a specific gas, calibration gases must be 
traceable to an analytical standard which is prepared using a method 
traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology. 
Calibration gases must be within +/-2.0 percent of the indicated gas 
concentration.
    (o) Recordkeeping. (1) When an AMS is used to comply with 
Sec. Sec.  75.323(d)(1)(ii), 75.340(a)(1)(ii), 75.340(a)(2)(ii), 
75.350(b), 75.350(c), or 75.362(f), responsible persons designated by 
the operator must make the following records by the end of the shift in 
which the following event(s) occur:
    (i) If an alert or alarm signal occurs, a record of the date, time, 
location and type of sensor, and the cause for the activation.
    (ii) If an AMS malfunctions, a record of the date, the extent and 
cause of the malfunction, and the corrective action taken to return the 
system to proper operation.
    (iii) A record of the seven-day test of alert and alarm signals, 
calibrations, and maintenance performed on the system must be made by 
the person(s) performing the test, calibration, or maintenance.
    (2) The person entering the record must include their name, title, 
date, and signature in the record.
    (3) The records required by this section must be kept in a secure 
book that is not susceptible to alteration, or must be kept 
electronically in a computer system that is secure and not susceptible 
to alteration. These records must be maintained separately from other 
records and identifiable by a title, such as the ``AMS log.''
    (p) Retention period. Records must be retained for at least one 
year at a surface location at the mine and made available for 
inspection by miners and authorized representatives of the Secretary.
    (q) Training. All AMS operators must be trained annually in the 
proper operation of the AMS. A record of the content of training, the 
person conducting the training, and the date the training was 
conducted, must be maintained at the mine for at least one year by the 
mine operator.
    (r) Communications. When an AMS is used to comply with Sec.  
75.350(b), a two-way voice communication system, as required by 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section, must be installed in a different 
entry that is separate from the AMS.
    5. Revise Sec.  75.352 to read as follows:


Sec.  75.352  Actions in response to AMS malfunction, alert, or alarm 
signals.

    (a) The designated AMS operator or other designated responsible 
person must promptly initiate the following actions:
    (1) When a malfunction or alert signal is given, notify appropriate 
personnel, immediately begin an examination to determine the cause, and 
take required action to address it, and
    (2) When an alarm is given, notify appropriate personnel, including 
miners in affected working sections, in areas where mechanized mining 
equipment is being installed or removed, and in other locations 
specified in the approved program of instruction as set forth in Sec.  
75.1502.
    (b) If contaminant concentration levels for any carbon monoxide, 
smoke, or equivalent sensor installed in accordance with Sec. Sec.  
75.340(a)(1)(ii), 75.340(a)(2)(ii), 75.350(b), or 75.350(c) exceed the 
specified alert or alarm level, the following procedures must be 
followed unless the cause of the alert or alarm signal is known not to 
be a hazard to the miners:
    (1) When an alert signal is given, the sensor activated must be 
identified and an examination must begin immediately to determine the 
cause of the alert signal.
    (2) When an alarm is given, the sensor that is activated must be 
identified, and the fire fighting and evacuation procedures initiated 
as required by the approved program of instruction (Sec.  75.1502). At 
a minimum, all personnel in the affected area, unless assigned other 
duties in the approved program of instruction (Sec.  75.1502), must be 
promptly evacuated outby the next functioning sensor upwind of the 
alarming sensor.
    (c) If an alert or alarm signal from a methane sensor in a return 
air split is activated, the sensor producing the alert or alarm signal 
must be identified, an examination must be made to determine the cause 
of the activation, and the actions required under Sec.  75.323 must be 
taken.
    (d) If any fire detection components of the AMS malfunction or are 
inoperative, immediate action must be taken to return the system to 
proper operation. During the time that AMS component repairs are being 
made, operation of the belt may continue if the following conditions 
are met:
    (1) If one AMS sensor becomes inoperative, a trained person must 
continuously monitor for carbon monoxide or smoke at the inoperative 
sensor.
    (2) If two or more adjacent AMS sensors become inoperative, a 
trained person(s) must patrol and continuously monitor for carbon 
monoxide or smoke in the affected area so that the affected area will 
be traveled each hour, or a trained person must be stationed to monitor 
at each inoperative sensor.
    (3) If the complete system becomes inoperative, trained persons 
must patrol and continuously monitor for carbon monoxide or smoke so 
that the affected belt entries are traveled each hour in their 
entirety.
    (4) The trained person(s) monitoring under this section must, as a 
minimum, have two-way voice communication capabilities with the AMS 
operator at intervals not to exceed 2,000 feet.
    (5) The trained persons monitoring under this section must report 
the concentrations detected at the affected AMS sensor(s) at intervals 
not to exceed one hour. In addition, the trained person must report as 
soon as possible to the AMS operator any concentration of the 
contaminant that reaches either the alert or alarm level specified in 
Sec.  75.351(i), or the alternate alert and alarm level specified in 
paragraph (d)(7) of this section, unless the source of the contaminant 
is known not to represent a hazard.
    (6) Instruments used to monitor under this section must have a 
level of detectability equal to that required of the sensors in Sec.  
75.351(l).
    (7) For those AMSs using sensors other than carbon monoxide 
sensors, an alternate detector and the alert and alarm levels 
associated with that detector must be specified and approved in the 
ventilation plan.
    (e) If the 50-foot per minute minimum air velocity is not 
maintained when required in Sec.  75.351(e)(3), immediate action must 
be taken to return the ventilation system to proper operation. Trained 
persons must patrol and continuously monitor for carbon monoxide or 
smoke as set forth in paragraphs (d)(1) through (7) of this

[[Page 3968]]

section, so that all portions of the affected belt entry(ies) are 
examined once each hour.
    6. Redesignate Sec.  75.371 (ii) through (pp) as paragraphs (oo) 
through (vv), respectively, and add new paragraphs (ii) through (nn) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  75.371  Mine ventilation plan; contents.

* * * * *
    (ii) The locations (designated areas) where dust measurements would 
be made in the belt entry when belt air is used to ventilate working 
sections or areas where mechanized mining equipment is being installed 
or removed, Sec.  75.350(b)(3).
    (jj) The locations of point-feed regulators, Sec.  75.350(c)(5).
    (kk) The location of any additional carbon monoxide or smoke sensor 
installed in the belt air course, Sec.  75.351(e)(5).
    (ll) The length of the time delay or any other method used for 
reducing the number of non-fire related alert and alarm signals from 
carbon monoxide sensors, Sec.  75.351(m).
    (mm) The lower alert and alarm settings for carbon monoxide 
sensors, Sec.  75.351(i)(2).
    (nn) The alternate detector and the alert and alarm levels 
associated with the detector, Sec.  75.352(d)(7).
* * * * *
    7. Amend Sec.  75.372 by revising paragraph (b)(16) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  75.372  Mine ventilation map.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (16) The locations and type of all AMS sensors required by this 
part.
* * * * *
    8. Amend Sec.  75.380, by revising paragraph (g) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  75.380  Escapeway; bituminous and lignite mines.

* * * * *
    (g) Except where separation of belt and trolley haulage entries 
from designated escapeways did not exist before November 15, 1992, and 
except as provided in Sec.  75.350(c), the primary escapeway must be 
separated from belt and trolley haulage entries for its entire length, 
to and including the first connecting crosscut outby each loading point 
except when a greater or lesser distance for this separation is 
specified and approved in the ventilation plan and does not pose a 
hazard to miners.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 03-1307 Filed 1-24-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-43-P