[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 64 (Friday, April 2, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17480-17530]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-6768]



[[Page 17479]]

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

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; 
Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 64 / Friday, April 2, 2004 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 17480]]


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

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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The final rule will 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 final rule, will maintain the level of safety, and 
therefore not reduce protections, currently afforded miners in 
underground mines while implementing advances in mining technology. The 
final rule amends existing safety standards for ventilation of 
underground coal mines. This final rule also amends other standards.

DATES: This standard is effective June 1, 2004, with the exception of 
Sec. Sec.  75.351(e)(3) and 75.351(r) which are effective August 2, 
2004.

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 may obtain copies of the final rule in alternative formats by 
calling his number or downloading the document from our Web site. The 
alternative formats available are either a large-print version of this 
document or an electronic file that can be sent to you either on a 
computer disk or an attachment to an e-mail. The document also is 
available on the Internet at http://www.msha.gov/REGSINFO.HTM.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Outline of Preamble

    This outline will help interested parties find information in this 
preamble more quickly.

I. Background
II. Discussion of Final Rule
    A. General Discussion--30 CFR, Part 75, Subpart D--Ventilation.
    1. General comments
    a. Respirable dust
    b. Replace point-type type heat sensors with AMS technology in 
all underground coal mines, not just those using belt air to 
ventilate working sections
    c. Battery-backup of AMS
    d. Require use of both carbon monoxide and smoke sensors
    e. District manager discretion
    f. Use of 1989 BEVR Report and 1992 Advisory Committee Report
    g. Slippage switches
    2. Comments comparing the differences between the final rule's 
provisions and requirements found in either granted petitions or in 
a pre-Coal Act mine's approved ventilation plan
    a. Protections under the final rule are at least equal to those 
contained in granted belt air petitions for modification (granted 
petitions) and, therefore, provide the same level or an increased 
level of protection currently afforded miners
    b. The role of atmospheric monitoring systems in granted belt 
air petitions and in the final belt air rule
    c. Granted belt air petition requirements not included as 
provisions in the final belt air rule
    (1) Granted petition requirement: Sensors shall be installed ``* 
* * as near to the roof as feasible (efforts toward monitoring 
within 12 inches of the roof) * * *'' or, sensors shall be installed 
``* * * in the upper third of the entry * * *''
    (2) Granted petition requirement: Tables are used to determine 
alert and alarm levels in many granted petitions
    (3) Granted petition requirement: The method used to determine 
ambient level
    (4) Granted petition requirement: Consideration of multiple 
entries is specifically addressed
    (5) Granted petition requirement: Requirement for implementation 
of diesel-discriminating sensors
    (6) Granted petition requirement: Requirement for notification 
of miners of alert signals
    (7) Granted petition requirement: Requirement for automatic 
activation of section alarm for sensors on panel; sensors 4,000 feet 
outby during initial development
    (8) Granted petition requirement: Mine phones are required to be 
located at intervals not to exceed 2,000 to 2,500 feet when mine 
personnel patrol and monitor the belt on system malfunctions
    (9) Granted petition requirement: Hand monitoring for products 
of combustion only permitted for a short period of time
    (10) Granted petition requirements: Pressure differentials 
maintained from escapeway to the belt air course when practicable; 
limit the pressure drop to lowest attainable level to escapeway from 
the belt when not feasible; and limiting total airflow to 50 percent 
of the total section intake
    (11) Granted petition requirement: ``Stopping'' construction 
specified
    (12) Granted petition requirement: Section alarms can be seen 
and heard
    (13) Granted petition requirements: ``Wall-of-water'' fire 
suppression system required at all belt drives; actuation of deluge 
system causes section alarms activation
    (14) Granted petition requirement: Smoke sensor technology study 
conducted
    (15) Granted petition requirement: Velocity Caps
    (16) Granted petition requirement: Phone; phone lines in intake 
(primary) escapeway
    (17) Granted petition requirement: Maintenance of belt entries
    (18) Granted petition requirement: Flame-resistant conveyor 
belting
    (19) Granted petition requirement: Location to measure velocity 
in the belt conveyor entry
    (20) Granted petition requirement: Miner training
    (21) Granted petition requirement: Prior MSHA inspection of AMS 
before use in belt air mine
    d. The effect of the final rule on pre-Coal Act mines that use 
belt air to ventilate working sections
    (1) Mine ventilation plan: Use of time-delays, visual alert 
signal, audible alarm signal required at the surface location
    (2) Mine ventilation plan: Alert and alarm levels of 4 and 8 ppm 
CO; respectively
    (3) Mine ventilation plan: Miners withdrawn on alert to a safe 
location where communications are available
    (4) Mine ventilation plan: Section alarm signals on deluge 
system activations
    (5) Mine ventilation plan: AMS Malfunction--Phones located at 
belt drives; midpoint of development section
    (6) Mine ventilation plan: Requires administrative controls for 
welding, cutting, or other known sources of CO
    (7) Mine ventilation plan: Point feeding prohibited from primary 
escapeway to belt; Stopping maintenance
    (8) Mine ventilation plan: Stoppings
    (9) Mine ventilation plan: Travelway provided and maintained on 
tailgate of longwall sections; Intake air split
    B. Section-by-Section Discussion
    Section 75.301 Definitions
    Section 75.350 Belt air course ventilation
    Section 75.351 Atmospheric monitoring systems
    Section 75.352 Actions in response to AMS malfunction, alert, or 
alarm signals
    Section 75.371 Mine ventilation plan, contents
    Section 75.372 Mine ventilation map
    Section 75.380(g) Escapeway; bituminous and lignite mines
III. Paperwork Reduction Act
IV. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 
Regulatory Flexibility Act
    A. Population-at-Risk
    B. Benefits
    C. Compliance Costs
    D. Safety Benefits and Other Economic Impacts
    E. Feasibility
    F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) and Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)
    1. Factual Basis for Certification
V. Other Regulatory Analyses
    A. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 and Executive Order 
12875 (Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership)

[[Page 17481]]

    B. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
    C. Executive Order 13045 (Health and Safety Effect on Children)
    D. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments)
    E. Executive Order 12630 (Governmental Actions and Interference 
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights)
    F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
    G. Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations that 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)
    H. Executive Order 13272 (Proper Consideration of Small Entities 
in Agency Rulemaking)
VI. Petitions for Modification

I. Background

    The final rule revises Sec. Sec.  75.350, 75.351, and 75.352 of our 
existing safety standards for underground coal mines. The rule also 
amends Sec. Sec.  75.301, 75.371, 75.372, and 75.380 of our existing 
safety standards for underground coal mines. These changes provide 
protection for miners when air is coursed through the belt entry to 
ventilate working sections and areas where mechanized mining equipment 
is being installed or removed in underground coal mines (setup or 
removal areas). Effective ventilation and the quick identification of 
potential hazards are needed to provide a safe environment for miners. 
New technology has proven safe and effective in quickly and reliably 
detecting the products of combustion and providing early warning to 
miners. The use of belt air under this final rule will increase 
protection compared to mines that use only point-type heat sensors by 
quickly detecting products of combustion in the belt entry at an early 
stage of fire development and by rapidly providing warning. With this 
final rule in place, mine operators will no longer be required to 
submit petitions for modification of existing standards in order to use 
belt air. These changes are in accordance with requirements in section 
101 of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act), 30 
U.S.C. 811.
    The Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 (the Coal Act), 
and the Mine Act that superseded it, provided that entries used as 
intake and return air courses be separated from belt haulage entries, 
and that air coursed through belt entries be prohibited from 
ventilating active working places. However, existing mines (pre-Coal 
Act mines) using belt air were permitted to continue to use belt air, 
with approval of the MSHA district manager (30 CFR 75.350 and formerly 
30 CFR 75.326). This approach of isolating the belt entry was directed 
at hazards associated with the potential for undetected fires and 
increased dust levels in conveyor belt entries. The approach was 
implemented through mandatory safety standard, 30 CFR 75.326. 
Technology has evolved since the passage of the Coal Act in 1969. 
Advances in computer-operated atmospheric monitoring systems (AMS) have 
led to acceptance of AMSs as an effective tool to monitor conditions in 
mine entries and detect the products of combustion at an early stage of 
fire development. This final rule establishes the requirements for 
integrating AMSs into a comprehensive and safe approach to use belt air 
for ventilation of working sections or setup or removal areas that 
maintains or increases protection for miners.
    MSHA first published a proposed rule to revise the safety standards 
for ventilation of underground coal mines (including original 30 CFR 
75.326) in the Federal Register January 27, 1988 (53 FR 2382). As part 
of that proposed rule, MSHA proposed to allow air coursed through the 
belt entry to ventilate working places when mine operators have 
installed 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 in March 1989 of safety factors associated 
with the use of air in the belt entry in the working places. 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 concluded 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 divergent views on the recommendations of the BEVR Committee. 
Commenters representing industry and academia concluded generally that 
the use of air in the belt entry provides positive ventilation and 
reduces the possibility of a methane (CH4) 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 
exposure to products of combustion 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 intake air to working places. MSHA's existing standards do not 
allow this practice except as approved on a mine-specific basis through 
the petition for modification process (30 U.S.C. 811 (c)) or when 
approved by the MSHA district manager for mines opened on or before 
March 30, 1970 (pre-Coal Act mines). The final ventilation rule 
retained the requirements of then-existing 30 CFR 75.326 requiring, in 
part, that entries used as intake and return air courses be separated 
from belt haulage entries and prohibiting air coursed through belt 
entries from ventilating active working places.
    MSHA decided that the use of 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 in a final report that air in the belt entry could be safely 
used to ventilate working places in underground coal mines, provided 
certain conditions are met.
    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.
    When the Agency published its final revised ventilation rule in 
March 1996, several commenters urged MSHA to

[[Page 17482]]

proceed at that time on the issue of belt air. However, belt air was 
not addressed in that rulemaking. The issue was placed on MSHA's 
rulemaking agenda for the development of a separate proposed rule (61 
FR 9765).
    On January 27, 2003, MSHA published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(68 FR 3936) to modify existing ventilation standards to allow the use 
of belt air, once certain controls were implemented in mines with three 
or more entries. There were five hearings on this proposed rule: in 
Grand Junction, Colorado; Charleston, West Virginia; Washington, 
Pennsylvania; Birmingham, Alabama; and Lexington, Kentucky. The post-
hearing comment period closed June 30, 2003.

II. Discussion of Final 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. At the time the Coal Act 
was passed, there was concern with the increased use of conveyor belts 
and the potential for propagation of fires along these belts. Room and 
pillar mining was the predominant form of coal mining and computer-
operated monitoring systems, such as the AMS, did not exist. Modern 
technology now allows for the use of belt air to ventilate working 
sections and setup or removal areas due to the development of sensitive 
atmospheric monitoring systems that utilize CO sensors that can readily 
detect small increases in the products of combustion. As AMSs have 
become more sophisticated, they have employed computer technology to 
transmit environmental measurements from remote locations to attended 
mine locations. These systems provide signals, store and catalogue 
data, and provide reports.
    The final rule continues to allow the existing method of 
ventilation where belt air is coursed directly to a return air course 
or to the surface and not onto either the working sections or setup or 
removal areas. However, it also permits, with additional requirements 
to ensure miner safety, the use of belt air to ventilate the working 
sections and setup or removal areas.
    Prior to this final rule, a mine operator would file a petition for 
modification to seek approval to use belt air to ventilate working 
places in the mine operator's underground coal mine. MSHA grants 
approval when the petitioned for change provides an alternate method 
that guarantees no less than the same measure of protection afforded by 
the existing standard, or when the application of the existing standard 
will result in a diminution of protection (30 U.S.C. 811(c)). To date, 
we have granted approximately 90 such petitions. However, a few of 
these have been revoked because the mine chose not to implement the 
petition or the mine was closed. 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, pre-Coal Act mines opened 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 
provide at least the same level of protection afforded to miners in 
petitions that we have granted. Under this final rule, the pre-Coal Act 
mines are not exempted and, therefore, must meet the new standards. 
This action will effectively increase protections in these mines.
    MSHA's proposed belt air rule (68 FR 3936, January 27, 2003) 
contains further discussion of: MSHA's experience with AMSs, including 
belt air petitions; a discussion of reportable and nonreportable belt 
fires; and a section discussing Summary and Considerations of the 
Advisory Committee Report, Recent Belt Air Petitions, and the BEVR 
Report. The proposed rule can be located at http://www.msha.gov/REGSPROP.HTM. MSHA refers the reader to this discussion for additional 
information.
1. General Comments
    Many comments were received during the public hearings on the belt 
air proposed rule which were not directly related to specific proposed 
provisions. While comments were directed at enhancing the health and 
safety of miners, they were either beyond the scope of the proposed 
rule or are addressed by existing standards.
    a. Respirable dust. Concerns with respirable dust levels for 
shuttle car and ram car operators working just inby the section loading 
point were expressed by a number of commenters. This issue is beyond 
the scope of this rulemaking. The mine operator is still required to 
meet air quality requirements, including respirable dust (30 CFR part 
70, subpart B--Dust Standards). Operators may need to implement 
additional dust controls in outby areas to use belt air and maintain 
compliance with existing standards.
    b. Replace point-type heat sensors with AMS technology in all 
underground coal mines, not just those using belt air to ventilate 
working sections. It was suggested by a number of commenters that AMS 
technology be required in the place of point-type heat sensors (PTHS) 
for fire detection in belt lines in all underground coal mines. The 
Agency encourages the implementation of AMS technology for fire 
detection because the Agency believes it to be superior to PTHS 
systems. However applying AMS technology to all underground coal mines 
is beyond the scope of this rulemaking on belt air and is, therefore, 
not addressed in this final rule.
    c. Battery backup of AMS. A number of comments were received 
regarding a petition requirement for a 4-hour battery backup for the 
AMS. The typical language from the petitions is as follows: ``The low-
level carbon monoxide system shall be capable of giving warning of a 
fire for a minimum of 4 hours after the source of power to the belt is 
removed, except when the power is removed during a fan stoppage or the 
belt haulageway is examined as provided in 30 CFR 75.1104-4(e)(1) and 
(2).'' This is not a requirement, as interpreted by the commenters, for 
a battery backup for the AMS. There are no existing granted petitions 
known to include such a requirement for a battery backup for the AMS.
    This language does not require the installation of an uninterrupted 
power supply (UPS) for the AMS. If power is removed from the belt, the 
AMS will function properly if powered from a different electrical 
circuit than the belt. If, however, the power source to the surface 
computer is interrupted, the AMS will not function. Without a UPS to 
power the system, the mine operator would be required to begin 
patrolling the belt entries, as required by Sec.  75.352(e)(3).
    The battery backup requirement is not included in the National Fire 
Code No. 72A (1967). Although it is not specifically required by this 
rule, mine operators can consider installation of a UPS to assure 
system operation in the event of a power interruption.
    In addition, if the AMS is used as a communication system under 
Sec.  75.351(r) of this final rule, then under Sec.  75.1600(c)(2) the 
system must be provided with means to permit continued communication in 
event the mine electric power fails or is cut off. The most likely 
method of compliance is installation of a UPS for the AMS.

[[Page 17483]]

    d. Require use of both carbon monoxide and smoke sensors. Some 
commenters suggested that the standard should require the use of both 
``carbon monoxide and smoke'' detection as included in the Advisory 
Committee recommendations, rather than the language in the proposed 
rule allowing ``carbon monoxide or smoke'' detectors. MSHA did not 
require both for several reasons. First, researchers at the U.S. Bureau 
of Mines (RI 9586 and RI 9311) have stated that some smoke sensors are 
subject to adverse effects of dust and humidity. MSHA is not aware of a 
commercially-available smoke sensor not subject to dust-related 
interference that meets the requirements of Sec.  75.1103-2 for use in 
underground coal mines. Second, CO sensors have proven to be protective 
for smoldering and flaming coal-type fires. NIOSH research (RI 9622) 
indicated a detection level of 5 ppm CO was equivalent to the detection 
level of smoke sensors. This comparison has led the Agency to conclude 
that the maximum alert level of 5 ppm carbon monoxide will provide at 
least the same protection to miners as a smoke sensor. For these 
reasons we have retained the proposed rule language, but we would 
encourage future research as well as implementation of new technology 
once it becomes available.
    e. District manager discretion. Many commenters were concerned with 
the level of discretion that the proposed rule would give to district 
managers. District managers currently are responsible for the biannual 
reviews of the mine ventilation plans, quarterly safety and health 
inspections, and other inspection and investigation activities under 
the Mine Act. This final rule adds ventilation plan requirements that 
will be reviewed as part of the plan approval process. This final rule 
provides flexibility for mine operators to tailor ventilation plans to 
mine-specific conditions, and gives the district manager discretion to 
approve or disapprove these plans, based on those mine conditions. Such 
conditions could include: establishment of ambient CO levels; lower CO 
alert and alarm levels; implementation of other technology, such as DDS 
in areas of the mine where diesel-powered equipment is used; or 
hydrogen-insensitive sensors used to monitor battery charging stations. 
MSHA believes this discretion is necessary to assure that protective, 
mine-specific ventilation plans are developed and implemented.
    f. Use of 1989 BEVR Report and 1992 Advisory Committee Report. Many 
of the same commenters also strongly opposed MSHA's reference to the 
1989 BEVR Report in the preamble of the proposed rule. They repeatedly 
noted NIOSH's opposition to the conclusions of that report as a basis 
for their objections. MSHA included the BEVR Report in the preamble of 
the proposed rule for the sake of a thorough review of existing 
documentation on the use of belt air. We relied upon the Advisory 
Committee Report and our extensive experience with granted petitions to 
write the proposed rule. It is important to note that NIOSH, in 
comments to the proposed rule, states that the use of belt air may have 
a positive effect on reducing dust levels in the face area. In 
addition, NIOSH states ``The development of improved atmospheric 
monitoring systems with fewer failures and false alarms has addressed 
previous reliability concerns.''
    These same commenters also testified that they never fully endorsed 
the recommendations of the Advisory Committee Report and perceive 
Agency inclusion or exclusion of various recommendations as being 
arbitrary and more dependent upon what ``fits [MSHA's] current 
rulemaking and enforcement scheme.'' As discussed in the proposed rule, 
most recommendations of the Advisory Committee were included in the 
proposed rule and are retained in the provisions of the final rule. In 
cases where a recommendation was not included, extensive discussion was 
provided in the proposed rule. In addition, analyses in previous 
sections of this preamble indicate the differences found between the 
belt-air related requirements of granted petitions and provisions of 
this final rule, and the ventilation plan of a pre-Coal Act mine and 
provisions of this final rule do not reduce protections afforded to 
miners.
    In addition, commenters have stated that ``the Agency gives no 
consideration to the protections miners and their representatives have 
been able to attain at the mine sites through the 101(c) petition 
process.'' They continue that ``the recommendations of the Advisory 
Committee coupled with language currently used in these petitions 
should have been the basis for MSHA's writing of this proposed rule.'' 
MSHA used all relevant information available to draft the proposed 
safety standard. MSHA has painstakingly evaluated all evidence in the 
record. Numerous changes have been included in the final rule that were 
not included in the proposed rule based on this analysis of, and 
response to, public comments. These changes will be discussed in detail 
in the section-by-section discussion. However, the final rule now 
provides for a maximum allowable air velocity in the belt entry, 
notification and withdrawal of personnel on working sections to a safe 
location if two consecutive sensors signal in the alert mode, 
installation of lifelines in return entries when used as alternate 
escapeways, and a 50% limit on intake air provided by the belt air 
course. Many of these changes will increase miner safety and in no case 
will the changes reduce the current level of protections afforded 
miners.
    g. Slippage switches. Finally, while neither the proposed rule nor 
any granted petition included a requirement to monitor slippage 
switches, the Advisory Committee recommended the integration of 
slippage switches that detect belt slippage into the early-warning fire 
detection system. If this was not feasible, the Advisory Committee 
recommended that the switches be visually examined each production 
shift. MSHA did not propose a provision on slippage switches but did 
solicit comments on this issue in the proposed rule. Only a few 
commenters submitted information on this issue. They stated that 
monitoring slippage switches would be inexpensive and should be 
required by this final rule. Such monitoring would indicate if the belt 
drive would be shut down in case of slippage. Another commenter was not 
certain whether it was contemplated that a belt slippage would trigger 
an alert or alarm. MSHA believes that the monitoring of slippage 
switches provides little relevant information, since the belt is shut 
down if slippage is detected. Therefore, no such requirement is added 
to the final rule.
2. Comments Comparing the Differences Between the Final Rule's 
Provisions and Requirements Found in Either Granted Petitions or in a 
Pre-Coal Act Mine's Approved Ventilation Plan
    The following discussion reviews comments that were received during 
this rulemaking that address the level of protection afforded by the 
final rule in comparison to levels of protection provided by granted 
petition requirements or ventilation plan requirements of a pre-Coal 
Act mine. The areas discussed are:
    a. Protections under the final rule are at least equal to those 
contained in granted belt air petitions for modification (granted 
petitions) and, therefore, provide the same level or an increased level 
of protection currently afforded miners;
    b. The role of atmospheric monitoring systems in granted belt air 
petitions and in the final belt air rule;
    c. Granted belt air petition requirements not included as 
provisions in the final belt air rule; and

[[Page 17484]]

    d. The effect of the final belt air rule on pre-Coal Act mines that 
use belt air to ventilate working sections.
    a. Protections under the final rule are at least equal to those 
contained in granted belt air petitions for modification (granted 
petitions) and, therefore, provide the same or an increased level of 
protection currently afforded miners.
    The Agency received a variety of opinions on the need for this rule 
and its legal basis. Some commenters supported the proposed rule, but 
suggested existing requirements in granted petitions be grandfathered. 
The commenters argued that these older requirements, such as the 2,000-
foot spacing of sensors, still provide an adequate degree of safety 
required to use belt air. Their position is that if companies have 
operated successfully under the existing provisions of a granted 
petition, there is no need to change these requirements to conform to 
the new standards. We cannot dispute that some mines have effectively 
discovered fires using the parameters in older granted petitions. 
However, research and our experience gained through the petition for 
modification process (petition process) have shown the final belt air 
provisions discussed in this preamble are more protective than those 
requirements in older granted petitions.
    In addition, these commenters suggested there will be a significant 
increased burden on the operators without a significant benefit to be 
gained by implementing the final rule. It is clear that many older 
granted petitions do not include significant improvements mandated in 
the newer petitions granted since 1996. Some older granted petition 
requirements have been modified by operators who recognized safer 
operating parameters could be implemented. These mines are operating at 
a level of safety exceeding the requirements of their respective 
granted petitions. For example, the petition granted to one mine 
required alert and alarm levels at 10 and 15 parts per million (ppm), 
respectively. The mine operator has since reduced the levels to 7 and 
12 ppm, respectively, thus increasing the early-warning fire capability 
of the AMS. In addition, another mine operator reduced sensor spacing 
from 2,000 feet to 1,000 feet to reduce the distance that the products 
of combustion would need to travel before being detected by an AMS 
sensor. This increased the early-warning fire detection capability of 
the AMS.
    Other commenters endorsed the concept of promulgating a rule, 
indicating that the rule was needed because of the high number of 
petitions filed. This final rule eliminates the need to apply for a 
petition and the corresponding delay in implementing the use of belt 
air due to the time required to process the petition.
    Different commenters demanded that the Agency withdraw the proposed 
rule and continue to allow the use of belt air only through the 
petition process due to many mine-specific health and safety concerns. 
One post-hearing commenter stated that the use of belt air at the Jim 
Walter Resources No. 5 mine (JWR No. 5 mine) was a contributing factor 
in the explosion that killed 13 miners in September 2001. The commenter 
asserts that if belt air was not used, at least one or two additional 
entries would have needed to be developed in order to provide adequate 
intake air to the section.
    MSHA evaluated the comments and determined that it is highly 
unlikely that additional entries on the longwall development would have 
prevented the explosions. According to the MSHA investigation report 
(United States Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health 
Administration, Coal Mine Safety and Health. Report of Investigation--
Fatal Underground Coal Mine Explosions, September 23, 2001--No. 5 Mine, 
Jim Walter Resources, Inc., Brookwood, Tuscaloosa County, Alabama--ID 
No. 01-01322.), the initial build-up of methane in the section was due 
to damaged ventilation controls between the intake and return entries. 
This damage was caused by a roof fall. This allowed intake air to 
short-circuit from the intake track entry into the return between the 
entries two crosscuts outby the last open crosscut, as noted in the 
accident investigation report. It was not due to blockage of the intake 
airway as suggested by the commenter. It is likely that any additional 
intake entries would have been on the opposite side of the large coal 
pillar, and the short-circuiting would have still occurred following 
the roof fall and damage to the stopping. The first explosion damaged 
additional ventilation controls which further affected ventilation and 
created the conditions for the larger second explosion.
    The commenter further suggests that the AMS did not work to protect 
miners in the JRW No. 5 mine. MSHA disagrees. The AMS is designed to 
detect low-level CO concentrations in the event of a fire along the 
belt air course. It was not designed to withstand the forces of an 
explosion, and on September 23, 2001, the AMS was damaged by the 
initial explosion. According to MSHA's accident report, the AMS 
correctly identified the damage and reported the failure of the system 
to communicate with its components. The AMS records indicated that 
alert and alarm signals from other sensors exposed to CO from the 
explosion were received at the surface location. The system was 
determined to be operating properly and as designed at the time of the 
accident.
    In addition, the commenter asserts that the use of belt air 
contributed to a build-up of float coal dust in the belt and return air 
courses that contributed to the severity of the fatal explosion. The 
findings in the accident report show that rock dusting was not 
performed properly to maintain the incombustible content in the mine. 
This was due to a lack of rock dust application, and not to the use of 
belt air. Even in the situation where the belt air is coursed in the 
outby direction, the return and intake entries would still need to be 
dusted. Both return air courses could be continually dusted while 
production continued 24 hours a day. As cited in the accident report, 
``If the 4 Section had been adequately rockdusted, coal dust would not 
have contributed to the second explosion and the severity of the 
accident. The number of fatalities would have been reduced.''
    One commenter asserted that the proposed rule violates section 
101(a)(9) of the Mine Act because it allegedly reduces the protections 
afforded miners under mine-specific modifications to the application of 
the existing standard. MSHA disagrees. The final rule does not violate 
section 101(a)(9) of the 1977 Mine Act because that provision does not 
call for a comparison of a new standard with mine-specific 
modifications of the application of an existing standard. Section 
101(a)(9) states: ``No mandatory health or safety standard promulgated 
under this title shall reduce the protection afforded miners by an 
existing mandatory health or safety standard.'' The plain language of 
section 101(a)(9) calls only for a comparison of a new standard with an 
existing standard. The plain language of section 101(a)(9) is 
corroborated by the statutory placement of section 101(a)(9). Section 
101(a)(9) is part of the subsection which pertains to mandatory health 
and safety standards--i.e., section 101(a)--and is one of a series of 
procedural and substantive requirements which apply to such standards. 
The placement of section 101(a)(9) indicates that it was intended to 
require a ``no less protection'' comparison with existing mandatory 
standards promulgated under section 101(a), and was not intended to 
require such a comparison with mine-specific modifications of the 
application of

[[Page 17485]]

existing standards granted under section 101(c).
    Accordingly, section 101(a)(9) requires that, in promulgating a new 
rule permitting the use of belt air, the Secretary weigh the net effect 
on safety under the new rule against the net effect on safety under the 
existing standard limiting the use of belt air. In promulgating this 
final rule, MSHA has done just that. MSHA has compared the protections 
provided by this final rule with the protections afforded by the 
existing standard and has concluded that, for the reasons set forth 
below, the final rule does not reduce the protection afforded by the 
existing standard.
    Some commenters argued that this final rule did not address mine-
specific concerns which were better addressed in petitions for 
modification. It should be noted that petition language is proposed by 
mine operators as an (alternative method of achieving the level of 
safety provided by 30 CFR 75.350). Under the ``alternative method'' of 
achieving compliance contemplated by Section 811(c), however, the mine 
operator need only establish that an alternative method achieves the 
result of the standard and guarantees a net ``equivalence'' in mine 
safety, taking all effects on mine safety into account.
    Although mine-specific modifications of the application of a 
mandatory safety standard, together with any requirements imposed in 
those modifications, have ``the same effect as a mandatory safety 
standard'' at the particular mine (30 CFR 44.4(c)), such modifications 
have never been held to constitute a mandatory safety standard of 
general application. A mandatory safety standard is generally 
applicable to all covered mines, whereas a mine-specific modification 
applies to only the one mine for which it was tailored.
    In addition, MSHA has determined that other safety and health 
provisions that may have been included in the granted petition after 
negotiations between the mine operator and miners' representatives are 
not germane to the safe use of belt air. Therefore, it is not 
appropriate, as well as not legally required, to include them in this 
final rule. For example, two petitions require an intake travelway on a 
longwall tailgate. An existing standard, Sec.  75.384, already requires 
travelways. Also, stopping construction is limited in some petitions to 
solid-block construction. Stopping construction is already addressed by 
an existing standard, Sec.  75.333.
    The Secretary acknowledges that some mine-specific modifications of 
the application of the existing standard contained conditions that, 
from a safety standpoint, went beyond what was required to achieve net 
equivalence with the existing standard. While the Secretary encourages 
the regulated community to institute safety measures that exceed what 
is required by her mandatory standards, the Secretary has determined 
that such measures are not required to achieve safety levels deemed 
adequate under the existing standard and the new rule.
    Some commenters contend that one-size-does-not-fit-all when it 
comes to using belt air in a variety of different mines. MSHA agrees. 
For example, the final rule allows flexibility for determining how the 
ambient, alert and alarm levels are established. This gives the 
district manager discretion in approving different levels in the 
ventilation plans for different mines, tailoring plans to mining 
conditions in each individual mine.
    In general, existing Sec.  75.370--Mine ventilation plan; 
submission and approval, requires that mine operators develop and 
follow a mine-specific ventilation plan that has been approved by the 
district manager. Section 75.371--Mine ventilation plan; contents, sets 
out the information that must be included in the ventilation plan. 
Additionally, the district manager is given discretion under Sec.  
75.371 to require additional provisions in submitted plans, if they are 
necessary to protect workers from methane and respirable dust.
    b. The role of atmospheric monitoring systems (AMSs) in granted 
petitions and in the final belt air rule.
    The cornerstone for allowing the use of belt air as intake air 
ventilating working sections and setup or removal areas in either a 
granted petition or this final rule is the proper installation, 
operation, maintenance, and examination of an AMS. An AMS provides for 
early-warning fire detection along the belt air course using sensors 
that detect low levels of CO or smoke. Signals from these sensors are 
transmitted to a designated surface location at the mine so that an AMS 
operator can notify appropriate personnel so that they can take 
required actions, depending on the type of signal received. These 
actions could range from an investigation of a malfunctioning sensor to 
evacuation of affected miners to a safe location in the mine due to an 
alarming sensor. Existing Sec.  75.351--Atmospheric monitoring system 
(AMS), establishes performance requirements for these systems 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. As 
explained in the section-by-section analysis of this final rule, 
existing Sec.  75.351 is revised to require the installation and 
operation of an AMS if the mine operator chooses to use belt air to 
ventilate working sections and areas where mechanized mining equipment 
is being installed or removed in underground coal mines. This 
requirement increases the level of safety provided miners in that an 
AMS, when used to comply with the automatic fire sensor requirements 
referenced in Sec.  75.1103-4(a)(2), can detect the products of 
combustion much faster than the more-common point-type heat sensors 
which require a significant level of heat to activate. Some commenters 
stated that belt air has been successfully used over many years and 
that only minor issues have developed concerning the AMS. An example 
was given that false alarms, or alarms that signal non-fire events, 
have been a problem in the past; but they have been ``addressed.'' The 
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) commented 
that ``The development of improved atmospheric monitoring systems with 
fewer failures and false alarms has addressed previous reliability 
concerns.'' One commenter stated that the AMS has helped to limit the 
number of belt fires at his mine. The use of modern AMSs helps to 
minimize alarms due to non-fire related CO production (nuisance alarms) 
and therefore, increases confidence that the signals reflect 
potentially hazardous conditions.
    Under Sec.  75.351(m) of this final rule, when a demonstrated need 
exists, such as the use of diesel-powered equipment, that can cause 
nuisance alert and alarm signals, time delays of up to 3 minutes (180 
seconds) may be incorporated into the AMS. These time delays reduce the 
number of non-fire related CO sensor signals, therefore making the 
system more reliable by reducing nuisance alert and alarm signals.
    In addition, this final rule also reduces alert and alarm levels to 
5 and 10 ppm above ambient CO levels, respectively, from higher levels 
specified in some existing granted petitions, thus increasing 
protection to miners. These are the maximum alert and alarm levels 
allowed by this final rule. Lower alert and alarm levels can be 
required by the district manager if conditions in the mine warrant such 
a reduction. One such condition would be air quantities sufficient to 
dilute CO produced by a fire which could delay the early detection of 
the fire.
    All alert and alarm values for particular CO sensors take into 
account

[[Page 17486]]

the ambient CO level (average concentration in ppm in the air course 
containing CO sensors) for that area of the mine where the sensors are 
located. Maximum alert and alarm values will be 5 and 10 ppm above 
ambient CO levels. For example, with an ambient CO level of 2 ppm, the 
alert and alarm levels will be 7 and 12 ppm, respectively. For an 
ambient CO level of 4 ppm, the alert and alarm levels will be 9 and 14 
ppm, respectively. Both of these sets of values provide equivalent 
protection because the alert and alarm signals are provided when the CO 
concentration in the belt air course rises 5 and 10 ppm above the 
ambient for that area of the mine, respectively.
    Also, the final rule reduces sensor spacing required by some of the 
older granted petitions 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 and setup or 
removal areas. We believe that there will be a reduction in the number 
of reportable belt fires and their severity due to the reduced sensor 
spacing and lowered alert and alarm levels. These provisions will 
provide increased early warning of the presence of the products of 
combustion.
    Some commenters stated that more regulation is needed to make sure 
that the AMS is maintained and that miners are trained. They 
recommended that MSHA review the most stringent granted petition and 
adopt its training requirements into law. We believe the final rule's 
maintenance and training provisions are appropriate. This final rule 
requires the AMS to automatically signal the AMS operator of electrical 
malfunction of the system. If malfunction signals are received at the 
surface location, the AMS operator must notify appropriate personnel 
who have the responsibility to take immediate action to investigate the 
signals and correct any problems. Furthermore, the final rule requires 
that personnel must be trained to maintain the system and that the 
system must be maintained in proper operating condition. Training 
provisions in this final belt air standard are consistent with existing 
training requirements in granted petitions. As will be discussed later, 
it is the Agency's position that current training requirements in part 
48 are sufficient to train miners and that the emergency drill 
requirements in existing standards are sufficient to give miners 
practical experience in the mine during non-emergency situations.
    c. Granted belt air petition requirements not included as 
provisions in the final belt air rule.
    In the preamble of the proposed rule, we summarized our analysis of 
the latest granted petition requirements from 2000 and 2001. Some 
commenters to the proposed rule questioned why we limited our analysis 
to petitions granted during 2000 and 2001. They identified specific 
petitions granted prior to 2000 and referenced some of these 
requirements. Some commenters suggested we should not have limited the 
analysis to that period, and that we should review all of the granted 
petitions. In response to these comments, we have reviewed nearly all 
of the petitions granted since 1978 in order to determine if there are 
any provisions not included in the final rule that are directly related 
to the safe use of belt air and are not already addressed by existing 
standards.
    We identified these requirements and considered whether they should 
be included in the final rule. Some of the early petition requirements 
identified are strengthened by the final rule, and some, while not 
specifically covered by this rule, are addressed in the mine 
ventilation plan approval process or by existing standards. Three 
phases of belt air granted petition requirements exist: those before 
the 1989 BEVR Report, those granted after publication of the BEVR 
report but before the 1996 revision of part 75 subpart D--Ventilation, 
and those granted after 1996. Requirements increased during each time 
period and became more consistent after 1996.
    We have reviewed differences between the final rule's provisions 
and the requirements in granted petitions and a generic petition that 
was submitted as a post-hearing comment. While we have adopted a 
majority of requirements contained in the 79 granted petitions 
reviewed, there are requirements in some of these granted petitions 
that we did not include in the final rule. We discuss these 
requirements below. It should be noted that the generic petition 
language is comparable to requirements in granted petitions.
    (1) Granted petition requirement: Sensors shall be installed ``* * 
* as near to the roof as feasible (efforts toward monitoring within 12 
inches of the roof) * * *'' or, sensors shall be installed ``* * * in 
the upper third of the entry * * *''
    Research on fire detection has shown the placement of sensors is 
critical to effective early fire detection. Buoyancy of heated air is 
recognized as a significant force in spreading products of combustion. 
For this reason, most granted petitions contain language requiring 
sensors to be installed in the upper third of the entry. Comments were 
received from both industry and labor indicating the ``upper third'' 
requirement from existing petition language was adequate. We have 
included language in the final rule requiring the installation of 
sensors in the upper third of the entry rather than language from the 
proposed rule (as close to the roof as feasible). For example, in a 
seam height of 6 feet, sensors must be installed within 24 inches of 
the roof, while as in a seam height of 48 inches, the sensor must be 
installed within 16 inches of the roof. This would not preclude 
operators from installing CO sensors as close to the roof as 
practicable, so long as the installation of the sensors was done in a 
manner to appropriately monitor air flow within that entry. 
Accordingly, in either situation, the location of the sensor would not 
reduce protections found in existing granted petition requirements. The 
final provision language reflects our response to public comments and 
our experience with granted petition requirements.
    (2) Granted petition requirement: Tables are used to determine 
alert and alarm levels in many granted petitions.
    The tables identifying alert and alarm levels for mines with 
various air flow velocities and belt entry dimensions were developed 
from the nomographs published in the Bureau of Mines document, RI 
9380--Fire Detection for Conveyor Belt Entries. These tables were 
included in a large number of granted petitions. This 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. For example, the maximum velocity allowed by the tables for 
alert and alarm levels of 5 and 10 ppm CO is 700 feet per minute (fpm). 
A reduction to 4 and 8 ppm alert and alarm levels would allow 
velocities as high as 1,680 fpm according to the tables. Because of 
overlap in the tables, conflicting determinations for alert and alarm 
settings can occur. Though the tables provided a method for reducing 
alert and alarm settings based on increased air flow quantities and 
cross-sectional areas, they have not always proven to be accurate 
because of variations in entry configuration and air velocity in an air 
course. MSHA believes that the mine ventilation plan

[[Page 17487]]

offers the best tool to handle special circumstances, such as when 
alert and alarm levels lower than 5 and 10 ppm, respectively, are 
needed due to increased air volume. Reduced alert and alarm levels will 
offset the effects of dilution caused by a higher air volume, thus 
maintaining the effectiveness of the AMS. These tables have not been 
specifically included in the final rule, but the information provided 
by the Bureau of Mines research will be considered by MSHA district 
managers when approving mine ventilation plans, including the alert and 
alarm levels established for compliance with the final rule.
    Some older granted petitions required alert and alarm levels to be 
set at 10 and 15 ppm CO above the ambient levels, respectively. These 
operations will be required by the final rule to increase protection by 
reducing these levels to 5 and 10 ppm above ambient or lower, 
respectively. Some granted petitions required the use of RI 9380 to set 
alert and alarm levels. The Agency believes there may be cases where 
the alert and alarm levels may need to be further reduced below 5 and 
10 ppm, respectively, and the district manager should have available 
all research information to assist in determining the most appropriate 
settings.
    (3) Granted petition requirement: The method used to determine 
ambient level.
    Many granted petitions include specific language on the method for 
determining the ambient CO levels. Other granted petitions allow a 
specified method to be used, or an alternate method approved by MSHA. 
Many mines have already established appropriate ambient levels and 
methods that are included in approved mine ventilation plans, as 
required since 1992 by existing Sec.  75.371(hh). For example, if a 
mine operator submits in the ventilation plan an ambient concentration 
of zero ppm, there will be no need to document the determination. If an 
operator requests an ambient concentration of eight ppm, MSHA would 
require documentation to approve such an ambient including the method 
used and CO levels measured. A single method for determining the 
ambient is not included in the final rule to give mine operators and 
district managers flexibility in establishing appropriate ambient 
levels that account for mine-specific situations. Any additional 
requirement on this issue is likely to be duplicative of former Sec.  
75.351.
    (4) Granted petition requirement: Consideration of multiple entries 
is specifically addressed.
    The effect of common entries on air flow is a complex issue. We 
have evaluated one entry in common (not separated by stoppings) with 
the belt entry and have discovered there is continual communication 
(air flow) between the two entries. MSHA has discouraged excessive 
numbers of common entries in the mine ventilation plan approval 
process, especially in mines using an AMS for fire detection. Air 
velocities can be difficult to maintain at or above 50 fpm in many of 
these mines. According to the results of recent NIOSH research (Edwards 
et al., 1999), CO sensors have proven effective at lower air 
velocities, when sensor spacing is reduced. Our experience is that the 
mine ventilation plan approval process assures the safe use of belt air 
by requiring AMS sensor locations that reflect the actual ventilation 
pattern in the mine. The Agency conducts ventilation surveys in many 
mines to determine the adequacy of a variety of mine ventilation plan 
specifications. The district manager has the authority to require 
either lower alert and alarm settings, additional CO sensor 
installations, or a combination of the two depending on the results of 
the MSHA survey.
    (5) Granted petition requirement: Requirement for implementation of 
diesel-discriminating sensors.
    Neither the proposed rule nor the final rule require the use of 
diesel-discriminating sensors (DDSs). However, some commenters 
suggested that the Agency require the use of such sensors. Currently, 
only three non-two-entry granted petitions require diesel-
discriminating sensors. One of these mines is closed, one mine never 
implemented the granted belt air petition, and one is active. This 
active mine benefits from the use of DDS because diesel-powered 
equipment emissions contaminate the belt entry, thus increasing the 
occurrence of non-fire alert and alarm signals if standard CO sensors 
were used. DDS technology reduces the incidence of these non-fire alert 
and alarm signals. Not all mines that use diesel-powered equipment 
would benefit from installing these sensors because the exhaust 
emissions in some mines are isolated from the belt entry due to the 
mining system employed. For this reason, the final belt air rule gives 
the mine operator the option of using such a sensor in reducing 
nuisance alert and alarm signals. Using DDS to detect non-fire alert 
and alarm signals is not required because some mining systems either do 
not use diesel-powered equipment or do not use such equipment near the 
belt entry. Mine operators are encouraged to explore all methods for 
reducing the occurrence of alert and alarm signals due to diesel-
powered engine exhaust emissions and other mine gases. As stated above, 
DDSs are effective in detecting fires while reducing the frequency of 
nuisance alert and alarm signals. Other methods and new technology may 
be equally or more effective, so limiting the technology to DDS in the 
final rule would inhibit the future application of technology providing 
increased protection. In addition, by requiring the mine operator to 
meet the requirements of Sec.  75.352--Actions in response to AMS 
malfunction, alert, or alarm signals, this final rule maintains 
protections currently afforded miners covered by these three granted 
petitions.
    Research is continuing on fire detection technology in both the 
public and private sectors. In 2003, MSHA evaluated a sensor designed 
to measure CO in areas where hydrogen could be present, such as in the 
vicinity of battery charging stations. The sensor was found to be 
insensitive to hydrogen while providing accurate measurements of CO in 
gas mixtures. Any methods for reducing nuisance and false alert and 
alarm signals, including the implementation of the DDS technology and 
hydrogen-insensitive technology, must be approved in the mine 
ventilation plan.
    (6) Granted petition requirement: Requirement for notification of 
miners of alert signals.
    The proposed rule did not require automatic notification of 
personnel on working sections and setup or removal areas in the event 
of a single alerting sensor, but did require such notification in the 
event of an alarming sensor. Similarly, the final rule does not require 
notification of personnel on working sections and on setup or removal 
areas following an alert signal from a single sensor. However, the 
final rule requires an investigation of the cause of the alert signal 
and the appropriate personnel are expected to investigate the cause of 
the alert signal. In response to comments received on the proposed rule 
and current petition requirements, an additional requirement to the 
provision (Sec.  75.352(c)) has been added to the final rule. During 
the alert mode, notification and removal of miners to a safe location 
is required only if two or more consecutive sensors reach and maintain 
alert status. This situation suggests a possible developing fire, thus 
removal of miners to a safe location is required and investigation of 
the signaling sensors is required to determine the cause. Automatic 
section signals are required by recently granted petitions

[[Page 17488]]

for alarm signals, which is consistent with both the proposed and final 
rule. Many older granted petitions required the sensor located near the 
section tailpiece to automatically activate the section alarm unit upon 
alert or alarm levels of CO being detected. These same mines utilized 
alert and alarm levels of 10 and 15 ppm, respectively. At 10 ppm CO, 
miners would be withdrawn to an area either outby the alerting sensor 
or to the section loading point. In either event, miners withdrawn to 
these locations may still be in danger, depending on where the fire is 
located. This final rule exceeds the requirements in these older 
granted petitions because miners are removed to a safe location pending 
investigation of a potential fire. In addition, an investigation would 
have been initiated by the AMS operator upon receiving an alert signal 
at 5 ppm CO. This further increases protections afforded miners beyond 
those set forth by the petition requirements.
    The newer petitions simply require notification of the affected 
working sections and investigation of the cause of the actuation. No 
additional actions are required for the affected sections. Because of 
this, MSHA sees no benefit of notification of miners in the affected 
sections unless these miners are necessary to investigate the alert 
signal. The primary reason for not requiring notification on an 
affected working section of a single alert signal is that it will 
reduce the incidence of the ``cry wolf'' syndrome, in which alert and 
alarm signals are discounted by miners as related to non-fire sources, 
such as diesel-powered equipment or welding fumes, and not to a real 
fire event. The final rule maintains the existing level of protection.
    (7) Granted petition requirement: Requirement for automatic 
activation of section alarm for sensors on panel; sensors 4,000 feet 
outby during initial development.
    The final rule exceeds these granted petition requirements in that 
any outby or upwind sensor indicating CO alarm levels requires 
activation of the working section alarm for all affected areas. For 
example, if the most outby sensor on the belt was to detect an alarm 
level of CO, and air passing this sensor could travel to all working 
sections and setup or removal areas, then all alarms in the mine must 
activate to notify miners.
    (8) Granted petition requirement: Mine phones are required to be 
located at intervals not to exceed 2,000 to 2,500 feet when mine 
personnel patrol and monitor the belt on system malfunctions.
    The final rule requires maximum phone spacing of 2,000 feet when 
mine personnel monitor by patrolling if AMS components are inoperative 
for any reason. Many older granted petitions do not include phone-
spacing requirements. Others require specific spacing of 2,000 feet as 
the granted condition. Many existing granted petitions have duplicative 
requirements that are already required in existing Sec.  75.1600--
Communications, including requirements for the repair and location of 
the phone system.
    (9) Granted petition requirement: Hand monitoring for products of 
combustion only permitted for a short period of time.
    The final rule, as in the proposed rule, does not limit the length 
of time allowed to hand monitor the belt entry in cases of sensor or 
system failure. Hand monitoring is considered to provide equivalent 
protection because similar sensor technology is used during hand 
monitoring and alert and alarm levels are reported immediately to the 
AMS operator. No specific comments were received regarding the duration 
of hand monitoring. However, we believe it is in the best interest of 
the operator and miners to repair the AMS as quickly as possible. Hand 
monitoring is considered a safe alternate method that provides the same 
level of protection as the AMS. However, it is labor intensive and 
therefore, far more costly than the AMS in monitoring the belt entry, 
so we believe that mine operators will limit the duration of hand 
monitoring.
    (10) Granted petition requirements: Pressure differentials 
maintained from escapeway to the belt air course when practicable; 
limit the pressure drop to lowest attainable level to escapeway from 
the belt when not feasible; and limiting total airflow to 50 percent of 
the total section intake.
    Recently granted petitions include some combination of these 
requirements. The pressure differential requirement was thoroughly 
discussed in the Advisory Committee report and the proposed rule 
preamble. The Agency agrees that it would be prudent to minimize 
leakage from the belt air course to the primary escapeway to the 
greatest extent possible. Absolute control on the pressure drop is 
nearly impossible. However, the Agency has included in the final rule 
the provision that unless otherwise approved by the district manager, 
the belt entry can contribute no more than 50% of intake air that 
ventilates working sections and setup or removal areas. This 
requirement is included in many granted petitions but was not included 
in the proposed rule because at the time MSHA believed it was best 
addressed on a mine-by-mine basis through the ventilation plan process. 
However, the requirement is included in this final rule due to 
commenters' concern that operators could provide a majority of the 
working section intake air from the belt air course, which would more 
likely create a pressure drop from the belt air course to the primary 
escapeway. This new provision is consistent with the intent of the 
proposed rule. The pressure differential from the belt air course to 
the primary escapeway will be minimized to the extent feasible. This 
will help to assure that the primary escapeway will be kept free of the 
products of combustion by balancing the pressures between the air 
courses, thereby minimizing leakage to the extent possible. Proper 
stopping construction and maintenance along with ventilation system 
design considerations can properly protect the integrity of the primary 
escapeway. Further clarification of this new provision is provided 
under the section-by-section discussion of Sec.  75.350(b)(6).
    (11) Granted petition requirement: ``Stopping'' construction 
specified.
    In some granted petitions, stopping construction techniques and 
materials used for stoppings were specified, and some required approval 
of such in the mine ventilation plan. One granted petition required 
stoppings to be built of ``* * * six-inch wide block and coated \1/8\ 
inch thick on both sides with an approved sealant for dry-stacking 
applications. Equivalent ventilation controls may be used provided they 
meet American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) testing 
standards on durability (ASTM E72-80) and flammability (E162-87).'' The 
provisions of current Sec.  75.333, revised in 1992, include these same 
ASTM testing standards.
    Some commenters to the proposed rule stated that the construction 
and maintenance of stoppings are not sufficient for proper control of 
air leakage. However, existing Sec.  75.333(e)(1)(i) sets minimum 
construction requirements for stoppings. The requirements include an 
ASTM test that can be used to determine the strength of a stopping. 
Additionally, Sec.  75.333(h) sets the maintenance requirements for 
stoppings. If stoppings are constructed and maintained as prescribed, 
leakage is minimized.
    A few commenters asserted that some stoppings do not protect miners 
during a mine fire. They stated that stoppings do not provide adequate 
protections to prevent a ``burn through'' during a fire.
    One commenter stated, based on his experience with the January 
2003, Mine 84 mine fire in Pennsylvania, that the panel-type metal 
stoppings would not

[[Page 17489]]

have held up during the fire. However, from the miners' testimony 
associated with MSHA's investigation of the Mine 84 fire, the steel-
panel stoppings would have provided ample protection for miners during 
escape. Existing Sec.  75.333(e)(1)(ii) requires that stoppings be 
constructed of noncombustible material. Existing Sec.  75.301 provides 
a definition of ``noncombustible material'' when it applies to a 
ventilation control. The definition states that the control must 
continue to serve its intended function for one hour when subjected to 
a fire test incorporating an ASTM E119-88 time/temperature heat input, 
or equivalent. The Agency believes that the 1-hour period provides time 
for escape during a fire and that the ASTM E119-88 heat input is an 
appropriate test for noncombustible material.
    One commenter stated that some miners were not trained in the 
proper procedures to build stoppings. The commenter offered examples of 
construction inadequacies when building concrete block stoppings. 
Another commenter stated that he observed stoppings in his mine that 
were constructed incorrectly. The Agency acknowledges that miners who 
build stoppings must be trained in the proper method to construct 
stoppings. Stoppings must be built to meet the requirements of existing 
standards. Failure to properly build stoppings can result in air loss 
and compromise the separation of air courses. Existing standards under 
Sec.  75.333--Ventilation controls, address these concerns about 
stoppings.
    One commenter asserted that the investigation of the JWR No. 5 Mine 
explosion found that metal stoppings were ineffective. The commenter 
stated that the metal stoppings were not hitched into the coal rib as 
prescribed by the manufacturer. Existing standards require that the 
stoppings be installed to serve the purpose to which they are intended, 
Sec.  75.333(h). Further, the commenter states that this type of 
ventilation control can fail easily during an explosion. Metal 
stoppings must meet the same construction requirements as other 
stoppings, including concrete block stoppings. Another commenter stated 
that metal stoppings are not adequate to withstand an explosion. 
Stoppings, including those constructed of concrete blocks or metal, are 
not designed or required to withstand explosion forces.
    (12) Granted petition requirement: Section alarms can be seen and 
heard.
    As previously discussed, the proposed rule indicated section alarms 
must be ``capable of being seen and heard'' by miners working on 
working sections and setup or removal areas. This is consistent with 
the majority of granted petitions whose language required ``visual and 
audible signals that can be seen and heard on the working section.'' To 
clarify the intent of the signaling device requirement, the final rule 
states that both visual and audible signals must be provided to working 
sections and to setup or removal areas and that these signals ``must be 
seen or heard'' by miners. This modification recognizes the fact, as 
supported by comments, that not every miner on a working section or in 
setup or removal areas is able to both see and hear the alarms. Both 
types of signals must be provided to working sections; however, MSHA 
acknowledges that in practice not all miners will be able to see and 
hear both signals. For example, if an alarm occurs in a mine with a 
granted petition that requires miners to both see and hear alarms, the 
miners working at the section loading point would be able to both see 
and hear both signals, but other miners working at the face may not be 
able to either see or hear the signals. Our intent is that the signals 
must be seen or heard by miners who will be able to notify other miners 
in affected areas who may not be able to see or hear the signals. This 
maintains the existing level of protection for miners working in mines 
with granted belt air petitions which require both signals to be seen 
and heard because it is recognized that all miners cannot see and hear 
both signals at all times.
    (13) Granted petition requirements: ``Wall-of-water'' fire 
suppression system required at all belt drives; actuation of deluge 
system causes section alarms activation.
    Existing Sec.  75.1101--Deluge-type water spray systems, requires 
that deluge-type water sprays or foam generators be installed at main 
and secondary belt-conveyor drives. These deluge-type water spray 
systems must automatically be actuated by a rise in temperature, or 
other no less effective means of controlling fire. These systems must 
be approved by the Secretary. Therefore, MSHA did not require in the 
proposed rule any particular deluge fire suppression system (wet or 
dry) for protecting belt drives in mines using belt air. The mine 
operator should select a fire suppression system appropriate for the 
specific operation. In some cases, a dry-powder fire suppression system 
may be more appropriate due to mine conditions that would result in 
freezing of water lines. Since a ``wall-of-water'' fire suppression 
system is not appropriate for all mines, it is not required by this 
final belt air rule.
    The proposed rule did not require that the fire suppression system 
be monitored with the AMS. Only three granted petitions contain this 
requirement. One of these mines is closed, one mine has not implemented 
the granted petition, and one mine is active. Actuation of any fire 
suppression system (wet or dry) causing section alarm activations is 
not necessary since the early-warning fire detection system will likely 
detect a fire before the fire suppression system is activated. In the 
accident investigation report for the VP 8 mine fire, it was concluded 
that the fire started at the belt drive. The dry-powder fire 
suppression system activated at that drive 32 minutes after detection 
by the AMS. The Agency has no data that support monitoring the deluge 
system with the AMS provides an added safety benefit.
    Though not proposed, we have included in the final rule a new 
requirement that all fire suppression systems (wet or dry) must be 
compatible with air velocities within the belt air course, Sec.  
75.350(a)(3), based on comments and Agency investigation into the VP 8 
mine fire. There is additional explanation in the section-by-section 
discussion on Sec.  75.350(a)(3).
    (14) Granted petition requirement: Smoke sensor technology study 
conducted.
    The final rule allows for implementation of smoke sensor technology 
and recognizes that smoke sensor detection levels can be equivalent to 
CO sensor detection levels at 5 ppm. The Agency believes mine operators 
would be prudent to evaluate the effectiveness of these sensors as a 
possible improvement to the AMS and fire detection capabilities. This 
is the reason the final rule has been written to allow their use.
    (15) Granted petition requirement: Velocity Caps.
    Eleven of the 79 granted petitions reviewed included velocity caps 
(limitations on velocity of air in the belt entry). These caps ranged 
from 250 to 725 fpm. In the case of a few early granted petitions, 
early research studies did not evaluate the effects of air velocities 
in excess of 300 fpm. Therefore, a velocity cap of 300 fpm was placed 
on air velocity. Later petitions did not typically include this 300 fpm 
cap due to additional research which indicated that higher velocities 
could be safely used. Later petitions that did include a velocity cap 
typically limited the air velocity to 500 fpm. We have included in the 
final rule a limit of 500 fpm unless higher velocities are specifically 
approved in the mine ventilation plan. This cap was

[[Page 17490]]

determined from data obtained in large-scale fire testing conducted by 
the U.S. Bureau of Mines that showed, in part, that smoldering coal 
fires would not be detected in a timely manner to provide early warning 
by CO sensors signaling at 5 ppm in velocities exceeding 500 fpm.
    (16) Granted petition requirement: Phone; phone lines in intake 
(primary) escapeway.
    The proposed rule required two means of communication, with one 
being the AMS and the second the two-way voice communication system 
required under existing Sec.  75.1600. Like the proposed rule, 
separation of the trunk lines for these systems is required in the 
final rule. However, we have changed the language in response to 
comments received on the separation of the AMS and the communication 
system, because the sensor in the primary escapeway and those used to 
monitor point feeds are part of the AMS. Installation of the phone line 
and these sensors in the escapeway would have been a violation of the 
proposed standard. The final provision was revised to allow for 
installation of the two-way voice communication system in the same 
entry (non-belt entry) where the intake sensors required by Sec. Sec.  
75.350(b)(4) (primary escapeway) or 75.350(d)(1) (point feeding) are 
installed.
    Some commenters suggested there is no need to require separation of 
AMS and voice-communication cables. However, as the MSHA investigation 
of the Fairfax mine fire determined, communication was lost because the 
phone line was installed in the belt entry and damaged due to the fire. 
In the Blue Diamond mine fire, as well as other documented mine fires, 
the AMS trunk line in the belt entry was damaged, causing communication 
failures early in the fire's development.
    Many commenters suggested the requirement should be grandfathered, 
to allow operators to provide separation of these cables starting on 
the final rule's effective date. A concern of some of the commenters is 
the cost of moving one of the cables. Some mines reportedly use a 
single multi-conductor cable for both the AMS and phone system. The 
Agency disagrees with the commenters on this issue, due to the reasons 
stated above. However, we are allowing a longer implementation period 
to allow mine operators time to separate AMS and voice communication 
cables as required by the final rule.
    (17) Granted petition requirement: Maintenance of belt entries.
    The granted petition requirement states, ``The operator shall 
develop and implement a special belt entry maintenance program to 
control combustibles and fire sources in the belt conveyor entries.'' 
The following specific items are listed in the granted petition as part 
of the program and include: inspection of fire suppression systems, 
maintenance of belt components, maintenance of electrical 
installations, and inspection of belt components. MSHA already has 
existing standards that cover these granted petition requirements on 
routine belt cleaning, belt maintenance and rock dusting under 
Sec. Sec.  75.360--Preshift examination at fixed intervals, 75.362--On-
shift examination; and part 75 subpart E--Combustible Materials and 
Rockdusting.
    (18) Granted petition requirement: Flame-resistant conveyor 
belting.
    Another granted petition requirement includes the use of conveyor 
belt material that has passed MSHA's new flame-resistant test once the 
material becomes commercially available. Although, this granted 
petition requirement was included in 59 granted petitions, the 
requirement was never implemented in practice. The reason is that the 
referenced conveyor-belt flammability test was part of a flame-
resistant conveyor belt proposed rule that MSHA subsequently withdrew 
in 2002 for the reasons set forth in the withdrawal notice. (67 FR 
46431). The granted petition requirement cannot be implemented since 
the requisite flame-resistant conveyor belt test has not been 
promulgated.
    Even without a rule on flame-resistant conveyor belt material, 
monitoring the belt entry for the products of combustion has become 
more prevalent. The most notable improvement in belt monitoring is the 
mining industry's increased use of AMSs in belt entries. Monitoring 
systems, in general, give advance warning of a developing fire in a 
belt entry allowing for earlier response, thereby limiting injuries to 
miners and fire damage. An AMS also provides advanced warning of 
increasing CO concentrations, thereby alerting mine operators to 
potentially hazardous situations.
    (19) Granted petition requirement: Location to measure velocity in 
the belt conveyor entry.
    This petition requirement relates to the use of tables to set alert 
and alarm levels based on the area of the entry and air velocity. The 
granted petition requirement reads, ``Measurements to obtain the 
average air velocity in a conveyor belt entry shall be taken at three 
or more locations which are representative of the cross sectional areas 
found throughout the entry and not at locations where the entry is 
abnormally high (e.g. belt drives) or low (e.g. under overcasts).'' 
This final rule, as in the proposed rule, does not use tables to 
establish alert and alarm levels; therefore, this petition requirement 
is moot.
    (20) Granted petition requirement: Miner training.
    The granted petition language requires that miners be trained in 
initial and refresher training regarding compliance with conditions 
specified in the petitions. This includes proper evacuation procedures. 
Sixty-two granted petitions contain this requirement. However, these 
requirements are covered either under existing 30 CFR part 48 training 
provisions or under evacuation training provisions included in the 
recently finalized Sec.  75.1502--Mine emergency evacuation and 
firefighting program of instruction.
    (21) Granted petition requirement: Prior MSHA inspection of AMS 
before use in belt air mine
    The granted petition requirement requires that, prior to 
implementing the use of belt air, MSHA inspect the AMS to see if it is 
fully operational and in compliance with the terms and conditions of 
the granted petition. This requirement is included in 59 granted 
petitions. The proposed rule did not include this specific requirement 
and neither does the final rule.
    The ultimate responsibility for assuring proper installation and 
operation of the AMS rests with the mine operator. MSHA already 
enforces standards to assure the mine operator maintains the system as 
required. As required by Sec. Sec.  75.350(b)(1) and 75.351 of this 
final rule, the AMS must be installed, operated, examined, and 
maintained if belt air is used to ventilate working sections and setup 
or removal areas. Some commenters to the proposed rule asserted that 
this inspection prior to the use of belt air should be in addition to 
the quarterly safety and health inspections of underground coal mines. 
Many belt air petitions required that the AMS fire detection system be 
inspected prior to belt air being used to ventilate working places as 
part of the conditions of the granted petition. However, when this rule 
becomes final, an operator will be able to start developing a mine with 
belt air being coursed onto the working sections and setup or removal 
areas, provided the final standards are followed. MSHA's regular 
inspections will be conducted during the initial development of the 
mine and the AMS will be inspected as part of these inspections.

[[Page 17491]]

    The Agency believes that an additional startup inspection prior to 
coursing belt air onto a working section would be duplicative of the 
inspections already conducted for mines that already have granted belt 
air petitions (approximately 45 active mines) and for pre-Coal Act 
mines (approximately 2 mines) that use belt air. The AMSs in these 
mines have already been inspected and are currently inspected 
quarterly. In addition, for mines that convert to belt air following 
publication of this final rule that have existing CO monitoring systems 
used to comply with existing Sec.  75.1103-4, MSHA currently inspects 
these systems quarterly (approximately 15 mines). The primary 
differences in the provisions between Sec.  75.1103-4 and this final 
rule could be in the alert and alarm levels and sensor spacing. For 
mines that seek to use belt air and do not have an existing CO 
monitoring system used to comply with Sec.  75.1103-4 (approximately 6 
mines), MSHA believes that a start-up inspection offers no additional 
safety benefit because of the numerous inspections that MSHA already 
conducts on an annual basis to these mines. For these mines, the MSHA 
presence will be significant, especially during mine development when 
the AMS would be installed prior to belt air use. In addition, these 
inspections would include a review of the AMS system in use at the mine 
site through review of the mine's ventilation plan and emergency 
evacuation plan. Therefore, a requirement for prior inspection of all 
of these AMSs in not necessary and would not further safety. In 
addition, MSHA will continue to inspect these systems to ensure that 
they are installed, operated, examined, and maintained according to the 
requirements of this final rule.
    Additionally, commenters urged MSHA to inspect the AMS to make sure 
it is working appropriately and to inspect the system more frequently 
than each regular inspection. Again, MSHA personnel inspect the AMS as 
part of the regular inspections of the mine pursuant to section 103(a) 
of the Mine Act (30 U.S.C. 813(a)). The Agency believes that additional 
inspections are not necessary and would be duplicative of existing 
Agency actions. This action will not diminish protections afforded 
miners because prior to the use of belt air, the mine operator must 
assure that the AMS is installed, operated, examined, and maintained 
according to the requirements in Sec. Sec.  75.350(b) and 75.351 of 
this final rule.
    d. The effect of the final rule on pre-Coal Act mines that use belt 
air to ventilate working sections.
    In the case of mines opened on or prior to March 30, 1970, the 
effective date of the Coal Act of 1969 (pre-Coal Act mines), the use of 
belt air is allowed through the mine ventilation plan approved by the 
MSHA district manager. As noted earlier, under the final rule, these 
pre-Coal Act mines using belt air to ventilate working places and/or 
setup or removal areas with working sections developed using three or 
more entries are not exempted from the rule and must meet the new 
standards, thus maintaining protections afforded to miners. This final 
rule also applies to pre-Coal Act mines that use belt air as a result 
of a granted petition. Some commenters stated that the proposed rule 
may lessen the protection provided at pre-Coal Act mines, such as the 
Gary 50 mine (now known as Pinnacle Mine) in southern West Virginia. We 
reviewed the mine ventilation plan requirements for the Gary 50 mine to 
identify the differences between the Gary 50 mine ventilation plan 
requirements and this final rule's provisions. We discuss the 
differences below.
    (1) Mine ventilation plan: Use of time-delays, visual alert signal, 
audible alarm signal required at the surface location.
    The approved ventilation plan for the Gary 50 mine allows short 
time delays of 30 to 90 seconds before all affected persons need to be 
notified following an alarm signal to limit situations that may cause 
nuisance or false alarms. AMS sensors that utilize time delays allow 
alert or alarm levels of CO to exist for a specified period of time 
prior to the computer acknowledging at the surface location that an 
actual alert or alarm signal was being received. If welding is being 
conducted within the belt entry by a sensor causing momentary increases 
in CO, a time delay would decrease the number of times the computer 
would signal an alert or alarm, and subsequently decrease the 
occurrence of non-fire related alert and alarm signals. However, such 
delays are not always necessary. The final rule allows the use of time 
delays only where there is a demonstrated need and the delays are 
specified and approved in the mine ventilation plan. The Gary 50 
ventilation plan does not require that a demonstrated need for the time 
delay exists. In addition, the final rule allows for a time delay that 
does not exceed 3 minutes (Sec.  75.351(m)) only when a demonstrated 
need exists. Under this final rule, the Gary 50 mine would need to 
demonstrate a need for this time delay. If a mine operator demonstrates 
a need for a time delay, the time delay will reduce the number of 
nuisance and false alert and alarms the mine experiences. This will 
increase confidence in the AMS and will therefore help to assure 
appropriate responses during fire-related alert and alarm conditions.
    The final rule requirement that both visual and audible alert and 
alarm signals be transmitted to the surface location where the AMS 
operator is located is more protective than the Gary 50 mine 
ventilation plan. This final rule requires both visual and audible 
signals for both alert and alarm levels be seen or heard at all times 
at the surface location. The Gary 50 plan requires only that a visual 
alert signal and an audible alarm signal be provided at the surface 
location. Only the CO sensor at the section loading point is required 
to automatically give a notification to the section for alert signals 
in the mine ventilation plan. The final rule requires immediate 
automatic notification of alarms in all affected areas, while the plan 
requires notification within a 90-second time delay.
    (2) Mine ventilation plan: Alert and alarm levels of 4 and 8 ppm 
CO; respectively.
    The district manager has required these reduced alert and alarm 
levels in the approved mine ventilation plan, and can continue to 
require them after the effective date of the final rule. The plan and 
final rule are compatible in this regard. Under final Sec.  
75.351(i)(2) the district manager may require reduced alert and alarm 
levels.
    (3) Mine ventilation plan: Miners withdrawn on alert to a safe 
location where communications are available.
    The plan approval requires that the AMS operator notify miners of 
an alert signal and that the miners withdraw to a safe location in the 
primary escapeway. The final rule requires withdrawal to a safe 
location identified in the emergency evacuation and firefighting 
program of instruction when two or more consecutive sensors are in 
alert mode or when any sensor is in the alarm mode. In the event of an 
alarm both the plan and this final rule require withdrawal to a safe 
location, unless the alarm is known not to be a hazard to the miners. 
Following withdrawal both the plan and the final rule require that an 
investigation be conducted to determine whether the alert or alarms are 
fire-related. They differ only in that the plan requires that miners be 
withdrawn when the AMS indicates one sensor is in alert mode. The final 
rule requires that miners be withdrawn when the AMS indicates two 
consecutive sensors are in alert mode, thereby reducing the ``cry-
wolf'' syndrome. The ``cry-wolf'' syndrome occurs when alert and alarm 
signals are discounted by miners as

[[Page 17492]]

related to non-fire sources, such as diesel-powered equipment or 
welding fumes, and not to a real fire event. It will reduce nuisance 
alert and alarm events, thus increasing the effectiveness of the AMS as 
a early-warning fire detection system. The final rule addresses the 
need to assure that temporary non-fire-related events do not cause 
withdrawal that could result in unnecessary panic among miners and that 
miners are assured that an order for withdrawal means there is an 
actual fire-related event. Therefore, the plan and final rule provide 
equivalent safety.
    (4) Mine ventilation plan: Section alarm signals on deluge system 
activations.
    The Gary 50 mine ventilation plan requires that the mine operator 
monitor deluge system activations with the AMS or alarms on activation 
of these systems. The Agency believes that actuation of the deluge 
system causing section alarms activations is not necessary since the 
early-warning fire detection system will likely detect a fire before 
the deluge system is activated, thereby making the monitoring of deluge 
system activations unnecessary. This issue was discussed in MSHA's 
report on the VP 8 mine fire, which started at a belt drive. The fire 
at the belt drive was detected by the CO system 32 minutes before the 
fire suppression system activated due to heat from the fire. Mine 
operators may choose to monitor deluge system activations to provide 
data to evaluate the effectiveness of deluge systems. This does not 
reduce protections for the reasons stated previously.
    (5) Mine ventilation plan: AMS Malfunction--Phones located at belt 
drives; midpoint of development section.
    The Gary 50 mine ventilation plan allows phones to be spaced up to 
5,000 feet apart in cases where longwall panels could be 10,000 feet in 
length. The final rule requires that communication be available in the 
belt entry at intervals not to exceed 2,000 feet in case of AMS 
malfunction. The final rule meets the plan requirement, and exceeds it 
in most cases.
    (6) Mine ventilation plan: Requires administrative controls for 
welding, cutting, or other known sources of CO.
    The final rule does not require operators to implement 
administrative controls to reduce false or nuisance alert and alarm 
signals. These controls could include notification of the AMS operator 
prior to welding and cutting activities near sensors.
    The mine operator is expected to adjust mining activities to comply 
with all the provisions of this final rule. This includes the 
implementation of time delays, if approved. All alert signals are 
received by the AMS operator and must be investigated by appropriate 
personnel to determine what caused the alert and to correct the 
situation. The Gary 50 ventilation plan also requires the AMS operator 
to initiate an investigation by appropriate personnel of alert signals 
to verify whether or not the situation poses a hazard to miners. The 
Agency believes that pre-notification of non-fire related CO such as 
produced by welding activities may be of benefit to the AMS operator, 
but may provide little additional protection to miners, since all 
alerts must be investigated and are not automatically communicated to 
affected areas. The rule does not prohibit notice to the AMS operator 
about cutting and welding activities. Mine operators who required that 
this information be supplied to the AMS operator may continue to do so.
    (7) Mine ventilation plan: Point feeding prohibited from primary 
escapeway to belt; Stopping maintenance.
    Point feeding, the process of providing additional intake air to 
the belt air course from another intake air course through a regulator, 
is permitted by the final rule with safeguards. These include a minimum 
air velocity through the regulator, monitoring the regulator for CO, 
and specific approval in the mine ventilation plan. Point feeding from 
the primary escapeway is safe when monitored with other controls in 
place, as specified in the final rule.
    Point feeding is permitted in the Gary 50 mine ventilation plan 
from intake entries other than the primary escapeway, but monitoring of 
the airstreams is not required. In this area the final rule provides 
greater protection than the requirements of the approved plan.
    (8) Mine ventilation plan: Stoppings.
    The Gary 50 mine ventilation plan requirements include a provision 
to inspect and reseal stoppings. Existing Sec.  75.333(h)--Ventilation 
controls, requires all ventilation controls to be properly maintained, 
so the plan merely repeats an existing standard that covers all 
underground coal mines.
    (9) Mine ventilation plan: Travelway provided and maintained on 
tailgate of longwall sections; Intake air split.
    This Gary 50 mine ventilation plan requirement also allows the 
established travelway to be ventilated with return air if needed. 
Existing Sec.  75.384 already requires a travelway to be maintained on 
the tailgate side of the panel when both escapeways are located on the 
headgate side. This travelway can be ventilated with either intake or 
return air.
    While some commenters claimed that the proposed rule may not 
provide the same level of protection as the requirements contained in 
the mine ventilation plan for mines in existence on the effective date 
of the 1969 Coal Act, we disagree. In the discussion above, we examined 
nine requirements in the mine ventilation plan for a pre-Coal Act mine, 
the Gary 50 mine. We conclude that the final rule increases the 
protection for miners for 2 of those requirements, produces the same 
level of protection for 7 of those requirements, and in no case reduces 
the level of protection afforded miners.

B. Section-by-Section Discussion

    The following portion of the preamble discusses each provision of 
the final rule. The text of the final rule is included at the end of 
the document.

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

Section 75.301 Definitions

    This final rule will add six new definitions to the list of 
definitions contained in the existing standard. As with other 
definitions in this section, the new definitions only apply to the 
standards contained in part 75, subpart D--Ventilation.
    Like the proposed rule, the final rule defines 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 AMS operator could be the person designated under Sec.  
75.1501--Emergency Evacuations, to be in charge during a mine emergency 
evacuation, however the final rule does not require the AMS operator to 
be this person. Likewise the AMS operator could be considered 
``appropriate personnel'' designated by the mine operator to respond to 
AMS signals under Sec.  75.351. MSHA did not receive comments on the 
specific language of this definition and therefore it remains as 
proposed.
    Like the proposed rule, the final rule defines appropriate 
personnel as the person or persons designated by the operator to 
perform specific tasks in response to AMS signals under Sec.  75.351. 
No comments on the specific language of this definition were received. 
However, the final language has been modified to reflect the new 
language in Sec. Sec.  75.1501 and 75.1502, as a result of the 
September 9, 2003 publication of the final Emergency Evacuations rule 
(68 FR 53049).

[[Page 17493]]

    We have added a clarification in this definition of appropriate 
personnel ``[a]ppropriate personnel includes the responsible person(s) 
required by Sec.  75.1501 when an emergency evacuation is necessary.'' 
This change is consistent with the responsibilities set forth in 
Sec. Sec.  75.1501(a) and (b) of the Emergency Evacuations final rule. 
These sections require that ``For each shift that miners work 
underground, there shall be in attendance a responsible person, 
designated by the mine operator to take charge during mine emergencies 
involving a fire, explosion or gas or water inundations. The 
responsible person shall have current knowledge of the assigned 
location and expected movements of miners underground, the operation of 
the mine ventilation system, the location of the mine escapeways, the 
mine communications system, any mine monitoring system if used, and the 
mine emergency evacuation and firefighting program of instruction * * * 
The responsible person shall initiate and conduct an immediate mine 
evacuation when there is a mine emergency which presents an imminent 
danger to miners due to fire or explosion or gas or water inundation.''
    The responsible person is one of the many individuals that meets 
the definition of appropriate personnel. Appropriate personnel have 
numerous and varied tasks depending on the type of signals received 
from the AMS, including checking a malfunctioning sensor, patrolling 
the belt air course in the event of AMS failure, and responding to mine 
emergencies. As a result, different situations will require different 
individuals having the designation as ``appropriate personnel.'' In the 
event of mine emergencies involving a fire, explosion or gas or water 
inundations, the duties of one person meeting the definition of 
appropriate personnel could be the same person as a ``responsible 
person'' under Sec.  75.1501.
    Like the proposed rule, the final rule defines 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. 
Each of these capabilities is important and an AMS used to comply with 
the requirements of this standard must provide the functions contained 
in the rule. In addition, as in the proposed rule, the final rule makes 
provision for new technology. Early-warning fire detection systems 
using newer technology that provides equal or greater protection, as 
determined by the Secretary, will be considered an atmospheric 
monitoring system for the purposes of this subpart. Unlike provisions 
in a granted petition, this provision allows the mine operator to use 
technology as it becomes commercially available and is of a type and 
installed in a manner approved by the Secretary that increases safety 
without the need to amend the existing granted petition.
    A commenter requested clarification concerning whether a mine using 
an AMS would also be required to use point-type heat sensor (PTHS). A 
system that meets the requirements of Sec.  75.350 meets the 
requirements of Sec.  75.1103-4; therefore an additional system using 
PTHS to comply with Sec.  75.1103-4 is not needed. In addition, the 
commenter requested clarification as to the use of the battery backup 
(standby power source) during fan maintenance and mine emergencies. The 
AMS is required under Sec.  75.1103-4(e) to give warning of fire for a 
minimum of 4 hours after the source of power to the belt is removed, 
unless the belt haulageway is examined for hot rollers and fire as 
provided in Sec. Sec.  75.1103-4(e)(1) or 75.1103-4(e)(2). MSHA has 
included a reference to these sections in Sec.  75.350(b)(1). MSHA did 
not receive any comments on the specific language of this definition 
and, therefore, it remains as proposed.
    Like the proposed rule, the final rule includes a definition for 
the belt air course. The belt air course is defined as 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. No comments on the specific 
language of this proposed definition were received. Therefore, the 
final language remains unchanged from that of the proposed rule.
    The final rule defines carbon monoxide ambient level as the average 
concentration in parts per million (ppm) of CO detected in an air 
course containing CO sensors. The CO ambient level is an average that 
is representative of the composition of the mine atmosphere over a 
designated period of mining activity during non-fire conditions. The 
proposed rule language is almost identical to the final rule language 
with the exception that ``in parts per million (ppm)'' was included in 
the definition to state the units of measurement of CO. In addition, 
the final rule language states that the average ``concentration'' of CO 
is representative of the composition of the mine atmosphere ``over a 
period of mining activity during a non-fire condition'' as opposed to 
``during a non-fire condition.''
    An effective early-warning fire detection system must be based upon 
reasonable operating parameters, which include the evaluation of 
ambient CO levels. One commenter suggested that the CO ambient level be 
determined by monitoring the air for a specified period of time, such 
as two to four weeks, within the entry or entries to be protected. This 
monitoring would occur prior to the commissioning of the installed CO 
system to help achieve an accurate average ambient level for CO. MSHA 
agrees that there needs to be a method to determine the ambient level. 
However, there are several ways to establish this level. The ambient 
level and ambient determination method are already required by existing 
Sec.  75.371(hh) to be included in the mine's ventilation plan. Due to 
different mining systems, it is the mine operator's responsibility to 
determine which method is best for the mine and to determine the 
ambient level subject to approval of the district manager. This 
provides flexibility in establishing the ambient CO level.
    The definition of CO ambient level includes the term ``average 
concentration.'' Ambient CO levels can vary from mine to mine and even 
within an individual mine. For example, one area of a mine may contain 
higher concentrations of CO at all times due to a variety of reasons 
(e.g., naturally-occurring CO in the area or increased use of diesel-
powered equipment in the area). Accordingly, the ambient level in these 
areas of the mine will be higher. The ambient level and the method used 
to determine it must approved in the mine ventilation plan. Unless the 
ambient level is specified as zero ppm, documentation must be provided 
to the district manager that the specified ambient level requested 
reflects the true conditions of the mine atmosphere. For many mines, 
the average concentration will be the same throughout the air course 
and will be at or near zero ppm. If a mine operator chooses to set the 
mine's ambient level at zero ppm, or less than the actual ambient 
level, this action will provide increased sensitivity for fire 
detection.
    There may be more than one ambient level per mine because the mine

[[Page 17494]]

operator may establish separate ambient levels for different areas of 
the 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 may raise the average concentration of 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 CO ambient level is determined using a 
reasonable duration of time that is representative of mining 
conditions, the average will represent the concentration in ppm 
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 CO level may vary from shift to shift depending on the type or 
amount of work being done. While some petitions established the method 
for determining the ambient level(s) for a mine, 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 will continue to 
require that the CO ambient level and the method for determining the 
ambient level be specified and approved in the mine ventilation plan, 
Sec.  75.371(hh), as already required by former Sec.  75.351. A 
commenter asked for clarification in the rule language itself that 
would state that there could be more than one CO ambient level in the 
mine thus giving mine operators the flexibility to establish more than 
one ambient. MSHA acknowledges that a mine may have multiple ambient 
levels such as when diesel-powered equipment is used in certain areas 
of the mine. Such equipment, when in use, increases CO levels in that 
area of the mine, thereby increasing non-fire alert and alarms unless 
the ambient CO level is modified. The following language has been added 
to the definition of CO ambient, ``Separate ambient levels may be 
established for different areas of the mine'' to clarify this issue. 
The language in the final definition remains modified as stated above, 
from the language in the proposed rule.
    It needs to be noted that the actual alert and alarm values for 
particular sensors will depend upon the ambient level for the area 
where these sensors are located. The ambient level represents the sum 
in ppm of both the naturally-occurring and man-made sources of CO, such 
as diesel-powered mining equipment in a particular area of a mine. Both 
the proposed and final rule take into account the ambient levels when 
alert and alarm levels are established. For an ambient level of 2 ppm, 
the alert and alarm levels will be 7 and 12 ppm, respectively. For an 
ambient level of 4 ppm, the alert and alarm levels will be 9 and 14 
ppm, respectively. Both of these sets of values provide equivalent 
protection because the alert and alarm signals are provided when the CO 
concentration in the belt air course rises 5 and 10 ppm above the 
ambient, respectively.
    No comments were received on the proposed definition for point 
feeding and it is unchanged in the final rule. As defined by the final 
rule, point feeding is the process of providing additional intake air 
to the belt air course from another intake air course through a 
regulator. Point-feeding allows the mine operator to increase airflow 
within the belt entry from other intake entries. This additional air is 
needed in many mines to dilute methane, coal dust, and diesel-powered 
engine exhaust. In addition, point feeding from one intake air course 
to another reduces the pressure differentials between these entries, 
which limits uncontrolled leakage from one air course to another air 
course. 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 compatibility with fire-detection sensor 
spacing. 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. This is 
important because if a fire develops in the belt air course, the 
primary escapeway is protected from smoke contamination due to a 
minimum number of point-feed regulators which can be closed remotely.
    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 final rule revises Sec.  75.350 that prohibits air coursed 
through belt entries from ventilating working places, except as 
approved on a mine-specific basis through the petition for modification 
process (30 U.S.C. 811(c)) or when approved by the MSHA district 
manager for mines opened prior to March 30, 1970 (pre-Coal Act mines). 
As noted under the Background section of this preamble, MSHA has a long 
history of evaluating the safe use of belt air through the petition for 
modification process.
    In promulgating this final rule, MSHA has evaluated the 
requirements in approximately 80 granted petitions to determine which 
requirements can be safely applied to all underground coal mines with 
three or more entries that seek to use belt air. This issue was 
discussed earlier in this preamble in the subsection entitled ``A. 
General Discussion--30 CFR, part 75, Subpart D--Ventilation'' found 
under the section entitled ``II. Discussion of Final Rule.''
    As used in the existing standard, the term ``belt entries'' refers 
to the belt air course. Under the final rule, the belt air course can 
be used to ventilate working sections, if the mine operator meets 
specified requirements. The term ``working sections,'' and not 
``working places,'' was used in the proposed rule and is used in the 
final rule to include the area inby the section 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 requirements of this final rule apply.
    The final rule also permits belt air to be used to ventilate 
mechanized mining equipment setup or removal areas if the mine operator 
meets the same specified safety requirements. If intake air passes 
through a belt entry where the belt is not operable, and is coursed 
onto a setup or removal area, the specified requirements do not apply. 
However, if any of the air that passes through the belt air course has 
passed over a belt that is being operated and will ventilate either 
working sections or equipment setup or removal areas, the specified 
requirements of this final rule apply. This maintains the protections 
set forth in this final rule.
    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. Existing Sec. Sec.  75.321 and 75.323 
require that oxygen and methane be kept within specified limits, 
respectively. Therefore, this final rule is consistent with

[[Page 17495]]

Sec. Sec.  75.321 and 75.323. It would not increase miner protection to 
repeat these requirements in the new Sec.  75.350. Miners receive the 
same level of protection.
    Separation of the belt air course from the primary escapeway is 
required by existing Sec.  75.380(g). Under the existing Sec.  75.350, 
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 this final rule prohibits the use of the belt 
air course 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 Sec.  75.350(b). Section 75.350(a)(1) 
requires separation of the belt air course from return air courses and 
other intake air courses with permanent stoppings. When the mine 
operator meets the requirements specified in Sec.  75.350(b), 
separation of the belt air course from intake air courses, other than 
primary escapeways (covered under existing Sec.  75.380(g)), is not 
required.
    The proposed rule did not set velocity caps, or maximum air 
velocities, within the belt air course. Some commenters agreed with the 
proposed rule, affirming that there should not be a limit imposed on 
the air velocity or quantity. Others maintained excessive velocities 
created a float coal dust hazard as well as increasing respirable dust 
levels within the air course, and that a cap on velocities should be 
set.
    The Agency is persuaded that there is a need for a velocity cap and 
that the cap will increase miners' protection. Section 75.350(a) is 
being revised by adding a new Sec.  75.350(a)(2) to the final rule 
based on a review of the rulemaking record. Once this final rule 
becomes effective, the air velocity in the belt entry must be limited 
to 500 fpm, unless higher velocities are approved by the district 
manager through the ventilation plan process.
    Velocity caps were required in a small percentage of granted 
petitions over the last 25 years. In the Agency's review of nearly all 
granted petitions, a total of 11 mines were limited to velocities 
ranging from 250 to 725 fpm. The original belt air velocity cap of 300 
fpm was required in a few granted petitions in the late 1980s based on 
the equivalency testing conducted by MSHA. The 300-fpm limit was the 
maximum velocity created in the test facility, and because the effects 
of higher velocities on belt fires were not known, the velocity cap was 
established. Results of large-scale testing by the U.S. Bureau of Mines 
at higher velocities (as high as 1,200 fpm) indicated the 300-fpm 
velocity cap was not warranted, and so it was typically not required in 
subsequent granted petitions. However, some recently granted petitions 
included velocity caps ranging from 250 to 500 fpm to address mine-
specific conditions.
    We have included the 500 fpm velocity cap requirement in Sec.  
75.350(a)(2). This requirement applies to all mines. We reviewed 
numerous research publications, granted petitions, ANSI standards, a 
NIOSH research report, and mine fire investigation reports. The 
velocity limit was ultimately determined by MSHA's analysis of RI 9380 
and existing granted petition requirements for sensor alert and alarm 
levels.
    The results of U.S. Bureau of Mines research report RI 9380 were 
based on large scale fire testing which used velocities in a wind 
tunnel up to 1,200 fpm. The report stated that when the belt entry air 
velocity exceeds about 2.54 meters/second (500 fpm), the smoldering 
stage would not be detected by either 5 ppm CO sensors or 0.044/meter 
smoke optical density smoke detectors. For this reason, to provide an 
early-warning fire detection system, the maximum velocity in the belt 
entry must not exceed 500 fpm, when alert and alarm levels are 5 and 10 
ppm, respectively, and sensor spacing is set at 1,000 feet. Higher 
velocities would be allowed only with approval of the district manager. 
We expect that approval of velocities in excess of 500 fpm would 
require reduced CO alert and alarm levels. Alternatively, other 
detection technology with increased sensitivity could be used to 
replace the CO sensors in these areas.
    In addition, ANSI/ISA-92.02.01, Part I--1998, prescribes a test 
procedure to determine the effects of air velocity on the performance 
of CO monitors. The maximum velocity tested in this procedure is 
approximately 1,000 fpm. Therefore, the performance of the monitors is 
not verified above this limit when tested to that standard. While the 
district manager may approve velocities in excess of 500 fpm, in mines 
using belt air the Agency recommends that air velocity not exceed 1,000 
fpm unless the fire detection system is known to be compatible with 
such air velocities.
    While we are persuaded that there is a need for velocity caps, we 
looked at the relationship between velocity caps and fire detection 
systems. MSHA found that the effectiveness of the fire detection system 
is dependent upon air velocity. As a result, though not proposed, we 
have included, in Sec.  75.350(a)(3), a requirement that air velocities 
must be compatible with fire detection systems as well as fire 
suppression systems used in the belt entry. MSHA has included the 
requirement that air velocity be compatible with fire suppression 
systems due to the findings of our report on the VP 8 mine fire (Non-
Injury Mine Fire Accident; April 9 & 10, VP 8, I.D. 44-03795, Island 
Creek Coal Company; Mavisdale, Buchanan County, Virginia; July 15, 
2003). It was determined that the air velocity at the belt drive where 
the fire started was in excess of 1,100 fpm. Testimony given during the 
fire investigation indicated that this velocity adversely affected the 
dispersion of the dry-powder chemical fire suppressant during the fire. 
MSHA's accident investigation report stated that, ``Section 17 of the 
National Fire Protection Association handbook assumes that the 
protected area will be guarded from adverse air flow influences unless 
engineering considerations are made for ventilation which would assure 
proper location and rates of chemical application'' (MSHA's Non-Injury 
Mine Fire Accident Report, Pg. 22). By including this provision, we are 
assuring the compatibility of velocity caps with fire suppression 
systems to maintain protections afforded to miners.
    Like the proposed rule, final Sec.  75.350(b) addresses the safety 
requirements that apply when belt air is used to ventilate a working 
section or an area where mechanized mining equipment is being installed 
or removed. Final paragraph (b)(1) requires that the mine operator 
equip the belt entry with an AMS installed, operated, and examined and 
maintained as specified in Sec.  75.351.
    One commenter suggested that MSHA include the following 
requirements: safeguard AMS cables by installing Kellam grips (braided 
wire cable securing device) any time a cable enters or exits a box; 
securely mount outstations to withstand an explosion; require that a 
six-foot loop of cable be hung in every crosscut during cable 
installation on a shear-pin hanger to prevent quick-snapping of the 
cables in the event of an explosion; additional standards for cable 
installation need to be developed and followed; and testing with known 
forces on hard-mount versus flexible-mount sensors. These suggestions 
are focused on the components of the system being able to withstand 
explosion forces. MSHA did not propose these requirements and has not 
included them in the final rule because the purpose of early-warning 
fire detection systems is to provide early warning of fire in the belt 
entry. The ability of some system components to withstand the forces of 
an explosion will not guarantee additional protection

[[Page 17496]]

to miners in mines that use belt air to ventilate working sections and 
setup or removal areas.
    In addition, based on a commenter's request for clarification 
concerning battery backup, we have referenced Sec.  75.1600-2(c) in 
Sec.  75.351(r) when the AMS is used as a communication system. It was 
MSHA's intent to require operation of the system up to 4 hours after 
removal of power to the belt, but not to specify that the system be 
powered by batteries where other alternatives may be as effective. 
There were no additional comments specific to proposed Sec.  
75.350(b)(1); the language in the final section remains as proposed.
    Paragraph (b)(2) of the final rule requires 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 must be conducted before miners work underground. This 
training must 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 emergency evacuation and firefighting 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 to 
specific signals from the AMS are necessary.
    The proposed provision received much comment regarding the 
appropriate training and the need for drills. Generally, commenters 
expressed concern about an increase in the number of subjects to be 
covered in the annual eight-hour training session required by 30 CFR 
part 48. They contend that it is difficult to incorporate new 
standards, such as the new emergency evacuations standard (Sec.  
75.1502), or requirements contained in new granted petitions into this 
training time period. Many of the commenters believed there was a need 
for drills and simulations in the training. MSHA agrees that drills 
increase the effectiveness of fire-fighting response and currently 
requires drills in existing standards. Currently both existing Sec.  
75.383--Escapeway maps and drills and Sec.  75.1502--Mine emergency 
evacuations and firefighting program of instruction include a 
requirement that the mine operator conduct a drill based on the mine's 
emergency evacuation and firefighting program of instruction. Including 
drills in this final rule would duplicate these existing requirements.
    The Agency's response to these commenters is that current training 
requirements in part 48 are sufficient to train miners and that the 
drill requirements in existing standards are sufficient to give miners 
practical experience in the mine during non-emergency situations. This 
provision increases protection for miners working at mines with granted 
petitions. Such granted petition requirements state that ``* * * miners 
shall be trained in proper evacuation procedures, including instruction 
and drills in evacuation and instruction in precautions to be taken for 
escape through smoke.'' In addition, ``Personnel stationed at the 
surface location shall also be trained in the operation of the carbon 
monoxide monitoring system and in the proper procedures to follow in 
the event of an emergency or malfunction and, in that event, shall take 
appropriate action immediately.''
    The proposed language was that ``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).'' Due to the 
large number of comments received on this proposed language, MSHA has 
clarified the language of this provision to more clearly express that 
all miners must receive this training prior to any work underground in 
a mine that uses belt air to ventilate working sections or areas where 
mechanized mining equipment is installed or removed. Existing part 48 
training requirements already include training on the use of mine 
communication systems and warning signals. While the proposed rule 
suggested that this training could be done outside part 48 training, a 
further review of existing part 48 indicates that this training is 
currently required. The AMS is considered by this final rule to be a 
communication system that generates alert and alarm signals, or warning 
signals, in response to the presence of products of combustion and 
methane. The final rule states ``All miners must be trained annually in 
the basic operating principles of the AMS, including the actions 
required in the event of activation of any AMS alert or alarm signal. 
This training must be conducted prior to working underground in a mine 
that uses belt air to ventilate working sections or areas where 
mechanized mining equipment is installed or removed. It must be 
conducted as part of a miner's part 48 new miner training (Sec.  48.5), 
experienced miner training (Sec.  48.6), or annual refresher training 
(Sec.  48.8).''
    We have added the term ``of any AMS alert or alarm signal'' instead 
of ``any system alarm'' to clarify the possibility that miners on 
working sections may act as appropriate personnel have to investigate 
malfunction or alert signals. It is the responsibility of the mine 
operator to assure that these training requirements are met.
    Final paragraph (b)(3) is unchanged from the proposed rule. It 
requires that the concentration of respirable dust in the belt air 
course be maintained at or below 1.0 mg/m\3\ because air in the belt 
entry is intake air. 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. We require that this DA be specified and 
approved in the mine ventilation plan.
    Two commenters submitted information on this provision. One 
commenter suggested that the DA should be located at the tailpiece or 
just inby the tailpiece in order to give a accurate representation of 
the dust exposure in the entry. Another commented that in the mine 
where he works, this level is exceeded because the use of belt air 
increases respirable and nonrespirable coal dust exposure. However, the 
commenters did not provide data to support their claims or to refute 
studies conducted by NIOSH and MSHA which show that dust exposures were 
not increased by the use of belt air above allowable levels. The 
existing standard, Sec.  70.100(b), specifies that the average 
concentration of respirable dust in the intake airways within 200 feet 
of working faces of each section must be continuously maintained at or 
below 1.0 mg/m3 in intake air. However, the use of the air 
from the belt air course as intake air to ventilate working sections or 
setup and removal areas requires that coal dust sampling be conducted 
at a location prior to the air reaching these areas or before mixing 
with other intake air. This means that sampling must be conducted at a 
point no greater than 50 feet upwind from the section loading point or 
no greater than 50 feet upwind from the point where belt air mixes with 
air from another intake air course near the loading point. This new 
provision is not in conflict with Sec.  70.100(b) because this is an 
additional requirement to measure the concentration of respirable dust 
in only the belt air. Therefore, the language

[[Page 17497]]

of this final rule remains as proposed and will provide the same level 
of protection as the existing standard.
    Paragraph 75.350(b)(4) requires monitoring of the primary escapeway 
as described under Sec.  75.351(f), that is, for CO or smoke within 500 
feet of the working section or area where mechanized mining equipment 
is being installed or removed, and within 500 feet of the beginning of 
the panel. The sensor used to comply with Sec.  75.351(f) may be used 
to comply with this Sec.  75.350(b)(4) if located in the primary 
escapeway within 500 feet of the working section or within 500 feet of 
the beginning of the panel. The point-feed sensor required by Sec.  
75.350(d)(1) may be used to meet the requirement of Sec.  75.350(b)(4) 
if the sensor is located within 500 feet of the beginning of the panel. 
Alarms activated by these sensors would warn miners of a fire in the 
primary escapeway upwind of the working section or setup or removal 
area and give them earlier warning and therefore more time to escape. 
These sensors will provide significant additional protection for a 
minimal cost.
    One commenter contended that monitoring of the primary escapeway 
should not be tied into those areas of the mine using belt air to 
ventilate the working faces. However, as stated above, the intake 
escapeway is monitored to afford an additional level of protection; 
therefore, the language of this provision remains as proposed.
    Paragraph 75.350(b)(5) is included to limit the use of belt air to 
areas developed using at least three entries for development in order 
to provide more protection because two-entry development is considered 
unique and requires additional protections. Therefore, all existing 
two-entry petition requirements are unaffected by this rule. Future 
two-entry mines will need to continue to file petitions to use belt 
air, since final Sec.  75.350(a) prohibits placing the 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 
in order to protect miners in these types of mines.
    This section has been rewritten to clarify our intent because of 
concerns that two-entry developments would be affected by the proposed 
language. Our intention is still that in order for two-entry 
development systems to permit return air to flow over the belt, a 
petition for modification will be required. Commenters indicated two-
entry mines should also be permitted to use belt air without a petition 
for Sec.  75.350. We agree that although most of the same provisions of 
this final rule would apply to these mines, because the two-entry 
petitions for modification are filed under diminution of safety 
criteria and not alternate equivalent means (Sec.  44.4), the granting 
of such petitions goes beyond the safe use of belt air. In such 
petitions the mine operator states that development of a three-entry 
system would be more dangerous, or a diminution of safety, than to 
develop a two-entry system due to ground control conditions. The mine 
operator will need to file a petition for modification for Sec.  
75.350. Based on these comments, the wording of the proposed provision 
has been changed to clarify our intent from ``the section must be 
developed with three or more entries'', to ``the area of the mine with 
a belt air course must be developed with three or more entries.''
    Paragraph (b)(6) requires in areas of the mine developed after the 
effective date of this final rule, that unless approved by the district 
manager, no more than 50% of the total intake air, delivered to the 
working section or to areas where mechanized mining equipment is being 
installed or removed, can be supplied from the belt air course. The 
proposed rule did not include this requirement; however, in the 
preamble, MSHA discussed the issue and concluded that pressure 
differential issues would be better addressed in the mine ventilation 
plan approval process. The intent of the proposed rule was that the 
design of the ventilation system would be specified in the mine 
ventilation plan. Most existing granted petitions limit the quantity of 
air from the belt entry to no more than 50 percent of the total section 
intake in areas of the mine developed after the effective date of the 
petition. This requirement was included in nearly all of the petitions 
granted since 1996. In these 37 granted petitions the mine operator 
needs to assure the integrity of all intake air courses is maintained, 
including the primary escapeway. The requirement helps to maintain the 
pressure drop from the primary escapeway (i.e., higher pressure in the 
escapeway) to the belt air course. In addition, in the event that this 
pressure drop cannot be maintained, the requirement also helps to 
minimize the pressure drop from the belt air course to the primary 
escapeway. In the event of a fire in the belt air course, this 
requirement minimizes the contamination of the primary escapeway with 
the products of combustion.
    Many commenters suggested that this requirement should be included 
in the final rule. Because of the number of commenters urging MSHA to 
include this requirement in the final rule, MSHA reconsidered this 
issue. We concluded that the ratio requirement to limit the 
contribution from the belt air course to total intake quantity to 
working sections and setup or removal areas should be included in the 
final rule. The new provision, Sec.  75.350(b)(6), will help maintain 
the integrity of the primary escapeway. We also recognize, consistent 
with the granted petitions, that in some instances the portion of 
intake air maintained in the belt air course may need to exceed 50 
percent of the total. In these instances we believe the district 
manager must have the authority to approve greater contributing 
quantities in the mine ventilation plan. A corresponding provision has 
been added to Sec.  75.371. The location for measurements to determine 
compliance with this provision must be specified in the mine 
ventilation plan as required by new Sec.  75.371(kk).
    The magnitude of leakage between air courses is a function of both 
the pressure drop across the stopping line separating the air courses, 
and the resistance of the stopping to air flow. In the event of a fire, 
a very low pressure drop with poorly constructed or maintained 
stoppings can be a greater danger to miners than a higher pressure drop 
with substantial stopping integrity. This hazard is created due to the 
leakage of the products of combustion through the poorly constructed or 
maintained stoppings. The products of combustion will not contaminate 
the adjacent entry as fast through well constructed and maintained 
stoppings. Stopping construction and maintenance is addressed in 
existing Sec.  75.333. We believe that these provisions are sufficient 
for stopping construction and maintenance in all coal mines.
    MSHA has included a new provision, under Sec.  75.350(b)(7), that 
requires the use of directional lifelines in return entries designated 
as alternate escapeways. These lifelines must meet requirements in the 
new section, Sec.  75.380(n). A directional lifeline is most likely a 
rope made of durable material; marked with a reflective material every 
25 feet; located in such a manner for miners to use effectively to 
escape; and have directional indicators, signifying the route of 
escape, placed at intervals not exceeding 100 feet. It should be noted 
that the Advisory Committee's recommendation was to install and 
maintain lifelines in all underground coal mines, regardless of the use 
of belt air. The recommendation specified that lifelines had to clearly 
designate the route of escape. Discussion in the Advisory Committee's 
report suggested the use of directional

[[Page 17498]]

cones to increase the effectiveness of lifelines. In the proposed rule, 
MSHA solicited information from the public concerning the use and 
maintainability of lifelines.
    Currently, four granted petitions require the use of lifelines in 
return entries used as alternate escapeways. Many commenters from 
government, industry, and labor responded to MSHA's request for 
information on lifelines.
    NIOSH commented that lifelines can improve the likelihood of escape 
from mine fires and suggested that MSHA consider an additional 
requirement for the installation of lifelines in all escapeways, not 
just alternate escapeways in return air courses at mines using belt 
air.
    Some commenters testified at the rulemaking hearings that it is 
difficult to maintain lifelines installed in escapeways where mobile 
equipment is used, because moving equipment can damage lifelines. One 
commenter suggested that the idea of lifelines has merit, and if they 
are used, they must be maintained. Another commenter suggested that 
lifelines be used in alternate escapeways, not in primary escapeways 
where equipment transport could damage them. The lifeline at the 
commenter's mine is located in the main returns and is routed to the 
closest portal thus avoiding damage from mobile equipment. Other 
commenters recommended that the use of lifelines is best considered 
under a separate revision of Sec.  75.380--Escapeways; bituminous and 
lignite mines.
    Another set of commenters voiced disappointment that MSHA did not 
include a proposed provision that would require the use of lifelines in 
both primary and alternate escapeways and that these lifelines be 
maintained. They pointed out that many operations are currently 
required to install and maintain lifelines as part of the requirements 
of granted belt air petitions. They claim that MSHA's decision not to 
include lifelines in the belt air final rule would eliminate that 
protection, thus reducing safety for the miners working in these mines.
    In addition, a witness at the public hearing in Washington, 
Pennsylvania, testified that the state of West Virginia requires the 
use of lifelines in a return air course if it is used as an escapeway. 
The witness reported that West Virginia law requires that lifelines be 
maintained in the escapeway up until the last open cross cut; be made 
of a durable material; and be marked with reflective tape once every 25 
feet. The commenter also testified that he would like to see lifelines 
constructed of fire-proof material required in all underground coal 
mines. Another witness testified at the Birmingham, Alabama, public 
hearing that he was familiar with situations in other mines where the 
belts were burned in half and miners had to feel their way out. He is 
in favor of the use of lifelines in an alternate escapeway. It is his 
position that during a fire, lifelines could be essential to miners 
finding their way safely out of a mine.
    These commenters maintain that, due to the lack of visibility, 
lifelines are necessary to escape a smoke-filled atmosphere. A miner 
testified that at MSHA's Mine Health and Safety Academy at Beaver, West 
Virginia, he received training for escape at the mine simulation 
laboratory under simulated smoke conditions. He noted that the lifeline 
used at MSHA's training facility was a valuable tool in getting him out 
of very thick smoke. A commenter testified that during the JWR No. 5 
mine accident, two miners felt their way out of thick smoke by 
following a cable out of the mine.
    Other miners also testified that the cost of lifelines is 
insignificant compared to the cost of buying a longwall drive unit or a 
continuous miner, and that maintenance costs associated with the 
lifelines are minor. MSHA concurs with the commenter that the cost of a 
lifeline is far less than that of a longwall unit. However, a longwall 
drive unit is not purchased to improve miner safety, whereas a lifeline 
is expected to improve miner safety.
    Overall the commenters stated that lifelines could be useful in 
helping miners escape to the surface of the mine when smoke-filled 
atmospheres are present. After further review of the granted petitions, 
reviewing the comments on lifelines, and researching state regulations 
regarding lifelines, MSHA agrees with the commenters that lifelines can 
aid in escape during emergency situations, especially in instances of 
reduced visibility due to smoke. In heavy smoke, a miner can easily 
become disoriented and cannot determine the proper direction for 
escape. A directional lifeline gives the miner added safety by 
directing the miner through the smoke-filled entries to safety. MSHA 
also recognizes, as did commenters, that there can be maintenance 
difficulties with lifelines used in the intake entries where the more 
frequent use of mobile equipment can damage them. Therefore, MSHA, as 
noted earlier, has added a new requirement under Sec.  75.380(n) to 
require the use of directional lifelines in return entries when used as 
alternate escapeways for mines that use belt air to ventilate active 
working sections and setup or removal areas (Sec.  75.350(b)(7)). The 
installation of lifelines in return escapeways will minimize 
maintenance problems because mobile equipment is seldom operated in 
return air courses. While the application of lifelines to all 
underground coal mines is beyond the scope of this rule, the Agency 
believes, based on the evidence presented during the course of this 
rulemaking, that it is appropriate to require the limited use of 
lifelines in this rule.
    In the proposed rule, Sec.  75.350(c) would have permitted point 
feeding air from an intake air course when a mine needs additional air 
in the belt air course, notwithstanding the provisions of Sec.  
75.380(g).
    The final rule splits proposed paragraph (c) into two sections, 
paragraphs (c) and (d) to clearly indicate MSHA's intent. Paragraph 
75.350(c) is derived from the proposed paragraph (c) and allows the use 
of point feeding, notwithstanding the provisions of Sec.  75.380(g), to 
add additional intake air to the belt air course through a point-feed 
regulator. The use of point feeding is permitted for all mines as long 
as the location and use of point feeds are approved in the mine 
ventilation plan.
    Point feeding, as defined in this final rule and allowed under 
final Sec.  75.350(c), is the process of providing additional intake 
air to the belt air course from another intake air course through a 
regulator. Point feeding allows the mine operator to increase airflow 
within the belt entry from other intake entries at underground 
locations. This additional air is needed in many mines to dilute 
methane, coal dust, and diesel-powered equipment exhaust. In addition, 
point feeding from one intake air course to another reduces the 
pressure differentials between these entries, which limits uncontrolled 
leakage from one air course to another air course. 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 
compatibility with fire-detection sensor spacing. Point feeding must be 
approved in the mine ventilation plan under Sec.  75.370 and conditions 
set out in the paragraph must be met.
    MSHA believes that point feeds should only be used when needed and 
the number of point-feed regulators should be kept to a minimum to 
maintain the integrity of the primary escapeway. This is important 
because if a fire develops in the belt air course, the primary 
escapeway is protected from smoke contamination due to a minimum number 
of point-feed regulators which can be closed remotely. This eliminates

[[Page 17499]]

one set of leakage paths for smoke to contaminate the primary 
escapeway. Point feeding is not meant to compensate for a poorly 
designed or inadequately maintained ventilation system. Any intake air 
course can be considered as a source for point feeding. The same 
requirements will apply to all intake air courses in order to maintain 
the integrity of the air courses and to facilitate early-warning fire 
detection capability. Early warning of fire will be facilitated by the 
required installation of AMS sensors at the point-feed locations in 
both the intake and belt aircourses.
    Paragraph (d) specifies six additional conditions, as proposed 
under Sec.  75.350(c), which must be met by mine operators if the air 
through the point-feed regulator 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 requirements of the final 
rule are the same as those of the proposed rule. Paragraph (d)(1), 
formerly proposed paragraph (c)(1), requires 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. A 
commenter recommended that point feeds that introduce fresh air into 
the belt line need to be monitored regardless of the direction of air 
flow along the belt. Other commenters agreed that both sides of point 
feeds need to be monitored due to the dilution effect that air at high 
quantities have on the products of combustion. Another commenter 
claimed that MSHA's requirement to monitor CO levels in intake air 
prior to entering a belt line would not be necessary if the belt air 
would be monitored using two CO sensors, one located upwind of the 
point where fresh air is introduced to the belt air course, and one 
located within 1,000 feet of the point feed on the belt line. MSHA 
disagrees with this strategy. The protection provided by the sensor 
required in paragraph (d)(1) located in the intake upwind of the point-
feed regulator is needed to identify where a fire is burning. MSHA 
agrees that both sides of the point-feed regulator need to be 
monitored, therefore the final language remains as proposed.
    Paragraph (d)(2), formerly proposed paragraph (c)(2), requires 
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. The 
requirements are unchanged from the proposal. 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 (smoke or CO) is most likely in 
the belt entry upwind of the mixing point. With this knowledge, the 
mine operator can take whatever action is appropriate including 
investigation of the alert, possible evacuation of miners from the 
affected area, and implementation of firefighting efforts if warranted. 
Some commenters testified that this provision is not a requirement in 
existing petitions. This is not correct. Point feeding is a provision 
included in three recently granted petitions (2001). Monitoring 
requirements for point feeding have been included in two of these 
granted petitions.
    Another commenter testified that the provision appears to be more 
appropriate to improving safety for point feeding intake air into a 
belt air course versus addressing the issue of using belt air at the 
face. The Agency agrees with this commenter. Approval requirements for 
point feeding under Sec.  75.350(c) apply to all underground coal 
mines, regardless of whether or not belt air is used to ventilate 
working sections or setup or removal areas. Specific provisions under 
Sec.  75.350(d) apply to underground coal mines that use belt air to 
ventilate working sections and setup and removal areas. These 
provisions maintain miner safety by increasing protection when point 
feeds are used to augment belt ventilation with other intake air that 
subsequently is delivered to working sections or setup and removal 
areas. 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 are permanent 
ventilation controls, the provisions of Sec.  75.333(e)(1) (Ventilation 
controls) apply. The wording of the final provision remains unchanged 
from that of the proposed rule.
    Final paragraph (d)(3), which was derived from proposed paragraph 
(c)(3), clarifies the requirements for closing point-feed regulators. 
The point-feed regulator must be provided with a means to close the 
regulator from the intake air course without requiring a person to 
enter the crosscut where the point-feed regulator is located. The 
point-feed regulator must also be provided with a means to close the 
regulator from a location in the belt air course immediately upwind of 
the crosscut containing the point-feed regulator. The modifications to 
this language from the proposed rule include: ``from the intake air 
course without requiring a person to enter the crosscut where the 
point-feed regulator is located'' and ``location in the belt air course 
immediately upwind of the crosscut containing the point-feed 
regulator'' where the means to close the regulator are found.
    This provision provides protection for those miners 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 such a manner, the person closing the point-
feed regulator could approach from the upwind side of the regulator 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 when a fire occurs in the intake air 
course. By closing the point-feed regulator under these conditions, the 
amount of contaminants entering the belt air course could be limited, 
thus providing miners additional time to escape.
    Some commenters thought that the requirement mandating remote-
closing of the regulator is unrealistic. The proposed rule did not 
mandate closure of the regulator, but rather that a means would be 
available to close the regulator if needed. Others questioned MSHA on 
how best to comply with the provision. Based on these comments, the 
language of this paragraph has been modified to clarify MSHA's intent. 
The point-feed regulator must be provided with a means to close the 
regulator, either manually or by remote control, from the intake air 
course without requiring a person to enter the air stream passing 
through the point-feed regulator. New language was added to this 
provision in response to comments, ``In addition, the point-feed 
regulator must also be provided with a means to close the regulator 
from a location in the belt air course immediately upwind of the 
crosscut containing the point-feed regulator.''
    Paragraph (d)(4), formerly proposed paragraph (c)(4), requires 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. No comments were received on this provision, therefore, it 
remains as proposed.
    Paragraph (d)(5), formerly proposed paragraph (c)(5), requires the 
mine 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

[[Page 17500]]

with existing Sec.  75.333 and must meet the performance requirement of 
remote closure as required by new Sec.  75.350(d)(3). The individual 
location(s) and use of a point-feed regulator(s) must be approved in 
the mine ventilation plan to assure that hazardous situations are not 
created.
    In addition, paragraph (d)(5) requires that the locations of point-
feed regulators 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. 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, including the location of point-feed regulators. Knowledge of 
the locations of point-feed regulators will allow miners to efficiently 
close the ventilation controls in a timely manner to facilitate escape. 
Although a means for closure is required for all point-feed regulators, 
closing a regulator, as in making any air change during a mine 
emergency, should be done only when necessary.
    Some commenters believe that this provision is unnecessary. They 
contend that it will create a number of unnecessary ventilation plan 
submissions. As an alternative, some commenters suggested that limiting 
point-feed regulators to one per conveyor belt flight would reduce the 
number of required plan submissions and allow mine operators to change 
belt ventilation to accommodate changing methane concentrations on belt 
lines in a timely manner. They claim that modifying the mine 
ventilation map to include these point feeds could be done in a timely 
manner. MSHA disagrees with the commenters. Based on MSHA experience, 
the installation of point feeds will be infrequent. Modifications to 
the mine ventilation plan will not be burdensome for operators, since 
they already submit plans to MSHA under existing Sec.  75.370 that are 
reviewed twice a year by MSHA. Thus, final paragraph (d)(5) remains 
unchanged from the proposed rule.
    Paragraph (d)(6), formerly proposed paragraph (c)(6), requires an 
AMS to be installed, operated, examined, and maintained as specified in 
Sec.  75.351 when point-feed regulators are used. This requirement, 
which applies to underground coal mines using belt air to ventilate 
working sections and setup and removal areas, greatly increases 
protection for miners by increasing the level of atmospheric monitoring 
of areas where intake air is directed into a belt air course, thereby 
increasing the ability of the mine operator to detect fires before they 
can develop into a serious threat to miners and mine property. No 
comments were received on this provision, and the provision remains 
unchanged from that of the proposed rule.

Section 75.351 Atmospheric Monitoring Systems

    This section of the final rule establishes the installation, 
location, examination, maintenance, and operational requirements for 
AMSs. The proper operation of an AMS is the cornerstone on which the 
safe use of belt air, and other provisions in this final rule, is 
based. Current AMS technology has proven itself to be reliable. Since 
1978, 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 granted belt air petition. As AMS technology 
has evolved, the performance requirements in the granted petitions have 
also evolved. Performance requirements are included in this final rule.
    Final paragraph (a) requires that an AMS be in 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(d), or 75.362(f). At those times 
the AMS must be operating and a designated AMS operator must be on duty 
at a location on the surface of the mine where audible and visual 
signals from the AMS must be seen or heard and the operator can 
promptly respond to these signals. The Agency intends that ``audible'' 
means able to clearly hear the signal above the noise of machinery as 
required by the National Fire Code (1967) which was incorporated by 
reference in Sec.  75.1103-2 (1972). It is intended that ``visual'' 
means clearly seen as required by language found in nearly all granted 
petitions. This language is slightly modified from the proposed rule by 
specifically indicating that both audible and visual AMS signals must 
be provided to the surface location. Also, the word ``can'' was 
replaced with ``must'' while ``and'' was replaced with ``or.'' It was 
the position of some commenters that the AMS operator should be able to 
``see or hear'' AMS signals. It is their position that the AMS operator 
can do other tasks while monitoring the AMS signals. One commenter also 
suggested that requiring both signals was ``regulatory overkill'' and 
suggested that we include the phrase ``and/or'' to allow flexibility to 
operations that need both audible and visual AMS signals. However, this 
commenter's suggestion would not require that every mine operator 
provide both audible and visual signals. Both types of signals have 
been required by nearly all granted petitions. MSHA agrees that AMS 
operators can do other tasks while monitoring AMS signals. However, 
primarily because the AMS operator may be conducting other tasks, it is 
necessary that both visual and audible signals be available and of 
sufficient magnitude to alert the AMS operator who must always be in a 
position to either see or hear both types of AMS signals.
    The final requirement of this paragraph is similar to existing 
Sec.  75.351(d)(1), which requires a person designated by the mine 
operator be stationed at the surface location while anyone is 
underground. This final requirement clarifies when the AMS must be in 
operation and when the AMS operator must be at the designated surface 
location.
    Generally, an AMS installed in accordance with Sec. Sec.  75.350(b) 
or 75.350(d) monitors the mine atmosphere at all times that a belt air 
course is used to provide intake air to a working section or areas 
where mechanized mining equipment is being installed or removed when 
miners are underground. This requirement is usually independent of belt 
operation or coal production. This means the AMS must be monitoring the 
mine atmosphere whether or not the belt is running or coal is being 
produced, whenever belt air is provided to working sections and 
locations where mechanized mining equipment is being installed or 
removed while miners are underground.
    Proposed paragraph 75.351(a) would have required ``for extended 
idle periods exceeding 24 hours, when the belt is not operating, the 
requirements of Sec. Sec.  75.350(b) or 75.350(c) would not apply after 
the initial 24 hour idle period.'' We received many comments on this 
proposed requirement. Some commenters testified that the traditional 
period for monitoring the belt line after shutdown is 4 hours, not 24 
hours. Other commenters testified that the belt line should be 
continuously monitored at all times if the air going down the belt line 
is being used to ventilate working sections. This is particularly 
relevant, they argued, when any miner is underground. One miner 
testified that during idle periods at his mine during vacations an 
estimated 200 miners are still underground. Another commenter stated 
that if the AMS system is off, because the belt has been down more than 
24 hours, air will still be traveling along the belt and passing 
through common entries where miners may be doing nonproduction jobs, 
such as

[[Page 17501]]

maintenance or deadwork. It was pointed out that the deadly explosions 
at JWR No. 5 mine occurred during a maintenance shift. Also, commenters 
testified that many smoldering fires have been found during periods 
that the belt has been down; indicating a need to keep the AMS 
operational. Therefore, some commenters argued that the AMS must be 
kept operational and records kept during idle periods.
    As previously stated, we have reviewed our report on the JWR No. 5 
mine accident. It was determined that although the accident had 
occurred on a maintenance shift, the accident was not related to the 
use of belt air.
    Due to commenter concerns, and the acknowledgment that this issue 
is covered under existing Sec.  75.1103-4--Automatic fire sensor and 
warning device systems; installation; minimum requirements, the 
proposed language has been deleted from the final rule. The proposed 
requirement was not intended to supersede the requirements in Sec.  
75.1103-4(e), which applies to all mines with belts. Section 75.350(a) 
applies only to mines that use belt air to ventilate working sections 
and areas where mechanized equipment is being installed or removed.
    In addition, the last sentence in the proposed provision, ``All 
provisions of this section will become applicable one hour prior to 
belt start-up following this idle period'' has also been deleted since 
the idle period requirement included in the proposed rule has been 
deleted from the final language. One commenter was not sure this 
requirement was necessary. We agree with the commenter that the 
requirement was not necessary, and therefore it has been deleted.
    A number of comments were received urging that we require a four-
hour AMS battery backup, a requirement included in recently granted 
petitions. Other commenters testified that the AMS needs a battery-
backup power system of four to five hours in case there is a power 
failure to maintain system integrity. The typical language from the 
petitions is as follows: ``The low-level carbon monoxide system shall 
be capable of giving warning of a fire for a minimum of 4 hours after 
the source of power to the belt is removed, except when the power is 
removed during a fan stoppage or the belt haulageway is examined as 
provided in 30 CFR 75.1104-4(e)(1) and (2).''
    It is apparent that this provision has been considered by many as a 
battery-backup requirement. However, this language does not require the 
installation of an uninterrupted power supply (UPS) for the AMS. The 
requirement for a UPS was not included in any known existing granted 
petitions. If power is removed from the belt, the AMS will function 
properly if powered from a different electrical circuit than the belt. 
If powered by the same power source as the belt, Sec.  75.1103 requires 
a battery backup to provide fire detection for at least four hours. If 
the power source to the surface computer is interrupted, the AMS will 
not function. Without a UPS to power the system, the mine operator 
would be required to begin patrolling the belt entries as required by 
Sec.  75.352(e)(3). If the AMS is used as a communication system to 
comply with Sec.  75.351(r), then according to Sec.  75.1600-2(c) a 
means to provide continued communication in the event the mine electric 
power fails or is cut off is required. This could be accomplished by 
installing a battery back-up or UPS.
    The quoted requirement from the existing petitions is already in 
effect as a provision for all mines using an AMS to comply with 
existing Sec.  75.1103-4(e). This section is referenced in new Sec.  
75.350(b)(1), therefore no changes in the proposed language are 
necessary. Although the battery backup is not specifically required by 
this rule or by the National Fire Code No. 72A (1967), mine operators 
should consider installation of a UPS to assure system operation in the 
event of a power interruption.
    Proposed Sec.  75.351(b) would have required the mine operator to 
designate a surface location at the mine for receiving signals from the 
AMS sensors or, if the operator wanted, at another location, possibly 
off mine property, approved by the district manager. In addition, the 
mine operator would assign 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 
Sec. Sec.  75.350(b) or 75.350(d) (Belt air course ventilation). Some 
commenters to this provision thought that having only one surface 
location was restrictive. Neither the proposed nor the final rule limit 
the mine operator to designating a single surface location on the mine 
property. However, if the mine operator designates more than one 
location, all of the locations must meet the requirements of the final 
rule. Other surface locations could also be nondesignated monitoring 
locations if the mine operator chooses to use data from the AMS for 
other purposes.
    Other commenters questioned the logic of the proposed language 
allowing the surface location to be located at ``another location 
approved by the district manager.'' They argued that this would allow 
the monitoring station to be underground or off the mine property. In a 
mine disaster, the former (an underground location) could endanger the 
whole system. The latter (off of mine property) could make the 
specified location ineffective or increase the time that it could take 
to respond to a danger underground because the mine operator may be 
relying on communication systems which may be compromised due to 
weather, natural disaster (i.e., flood, tornado, hailstorm) or 
accidental damage to overland communication lines. MSHA agrees with the 
commenters, and has removed the language on allowing other locations 
from the final provision because such a designation could reduce the 
effectiveness in responding to the AMS.
    Like the proposed rule, Sec.  75.351(b)(1) of the final rule 
requires that the AMS operator or other appropriate personnel have 
access to two-way voice communication with persons on working sections, 
areas where mechanized mining equipment is being installed or removed, 
and other areas included in the approved emergency evacuation and 
firefighting program of instruction, Sec.  75.1502. This is consistent 
with granted petitions. These areas must 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 supplemental roof supports or where they are 
making repairs to track haulage systems.
    Paragraph (b)(2) requires the mine operator to designate an AMS 
operator to monitor and promptly respond to all AMS signals. This has 
been modified from what was proposed in that the phrase ``* * * and be 
at a location on the mine surface where the AMS operator can promptly 
respond to all signals from the AMS'' has been rewritten to remove the 
surface location reference already included in paragraph (b)(1). One 
commenter asked if the designated AMS operator can be a named person or 
a position description. For instance, a company may have control room 
operators who are on duty seven days a week, twenty four hours a day. 
This would allow designating a position instead of a specific, named 
individual. The commenter maintained that MSHA needs to clarify this 
portion of the proposed standard. MSHA agrees that the AMS operator can 
be a position

[[Page 17502]]

description. However, persons filling this position must be listed as 
required under Sec.  75.351(b)(4) and properly trained to be an AMS 
operator under Sec.  75.351(q).
    We require the AMS operator to notify appropriate personnel in 
response to a malfunction, alert, or alarm signal. The AMS operator 
could be the responsible person initiating the approved emergency 
evacuation and firefighting program of instruction under existing Sec.  
75.1502, who could notify the responsible person for initiating the 
plan. The AMS operator must be on duty while personnel are underground, 
and must be monitoring the AMS pursuant to the requirements of existing 
Sec. Sec.  75.323(d)(1)(ii), 75.340(a)(1)(ii), or 75.340(a)(2)(ii), 
75.350(b), 75.350(d), or 75.362(f).
    The proposed paragraph (b)(3) stated that the map must be updated 
daily. Some commenters suggested that the map be updated, instead of 
daily, to within 24 hours when changes are made, such as adding sensors 
or changing air flow direction. Because there is no substantial 
difference between ``daily'' and ``within 24 hours'', final paragraph 
(b)(3) requires the posting at the designated surface location of an 
up-to-date map or schematic showing air flow directions and the 
location and type of all AMS sensors to be updated within 24 hours of 
any change in this information. It is as protective as the proposed 
language, in that all changes are updated in a similar time frame. 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 appropriate personnel will be better able to identify the affected 
areas of the mine. This requirement also applies to Sec. Sec.  
75.350(b) and 75.350(d).
    Paragraph 75.351(b)(4) requires that certain information be 
provided at the designated surface location. That information includes: 
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 Sec.  75.1501; and the 
method to contact these persons. This will provide a means for an AMS 
operator to promptly contact the appropriate personnel in the event of 
an emergency. Some commenters thought that it was unnecessary to 
require a method of contact because it would require the appropriate 
personnel to always be positioned by a mine phone. It is MSHA's intent 
that during each shift miners work underground, there must be at least 
one appropriate person on site who can be contacted in case of an 
emergency. This does not preclude appropriate personnel from being 
underground; however, this person's location must be known and he/she 
must be able to be contacted by the AMS operator from the designated 
surface location. If this person is not able to be in contact with the 
AMS operator, then the mine operator must designate another appropriate 
person in his/her place who is able to be contacted by the AMS 
operator.
    Other commenters emphasized that the AMS operators must have 
specialized training that includes mine-specific knowledge of equipment 
and personnel locations as well as what actions are needed for 
different AMS signals. The Agency agrees with this comment. The 
proposed rule included provisions that required specialized training 
for the AMS operators under Sec.  75.351(q). The final rule is 
unchanged from the proposed rule.
    Paragraph 75.351(c) establishes minimum operational requirements 
for an AMS installed in accordance with existing Sec. Sec.  
75.323(d)(1)(ii), 75.340(a)(1)(ii), 75.340(a)(2)(ii), 75.350(b), 
75.350(d), or 75.362(f). MSHA has developed a tiered response to 
address malfunction, alert, and alarm signals in order to require 
proper action by the AMS operator, appropriate personnel, and miners. 
Malfunction and alert signals from single sensors are addressed in a 
similar manner in this final rule. It is important to investigate to 
determine the cause of either the malfunction or alert signal and to 
correct the condition causing the signal 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. Malfunction, alert, and alarm signals can be 
customized by assigning different tones or lights so that the AMS 
operator can easily distinguish them in order to respond appropriately. 
For example, while all signals would be indicated by the same audible 
device, a malfunction could be identified as a communication failure on 
the computer screen, whereas an alert CO level would be indicated by 
yellow text on the computer screen, and an alarm CO level would be 
indicated by red text on the computer screen. Normal conditions would 
be indicated by green text on the computer screen. Alarms on working 
sections and on setup or removal areas must be discernable by sight or 
sound by the miners so that appropriate actions outlined in the Sec.  
75.352(c) can be taken.
    The proposed rule language in Sec.  75.351(c)(1) stated that alert 
and alarm signals ``* * * can be seen or heard by the AMS Operator * * 
*''. It was our intent that the system would at all times be capable of 
notifying the AMS operator that action was required in response to a 
signal. This signal could be either a visual or audible signal, but at 
a minimum, one of these signals must be seen or heard at all times. The 
Agency believed that the notification could be in either the visual or 
audible mode, and the proposed rule was written to require alert and 
alarm signals that would be adequate for making this notification. The 
final rule clarifies this intent, by changing the language to ``* * * 
must be of sufficient magnitude to be seen or heard by the AMS operator 
* * *.'' In this way it is assured that the AMS operator will be 
notified of a possible problem.
    Proposed Sec.  75.351(c) has been revised in this final rule to 
clarify the intent of the standard. The final rule specifies that the 
AMS must provide visual and audible signals in the event of any 
interruption of circuit continuity and any electrical malfunction of 
the system. In addition, the final rule specifies the AMS must provide 
visual and audible signals in the event of the detection of carbon 
monoxide or methane at the established alert levels, or detection of 
carbon monoxide, smoke, or methane at the established alarm levels. The 
final paragraph also requires the signals to be provided at the 
specified locations as was stated in the proposed rule.
    Many comments were received regarding alert and alarm signals at 
the surface and underground locations. Most commenters suggested the 
alert and alarm signal requirement should be ``seen or heard'' rather 
than ``seen and heard''. Of utmost importance is that the system must 
make the required notification. The intent of the proposed rule was to 
require two signals at the surface location, and that at least one of 
these signals would effectively provide notification of an emergency or 
malfunction condition. The language ``capable of being seen and heard'' 
and ``can be seen or heard'' were intended to require substantial and 
appropriate signal devices, and not that the signals be both seen and 
heard. The language used was intended to require the signals to be 
sufficient for the purpose, such as the language in existing Sec.  
75.1600-2(b) which states ``The incoming communication signal shall 
activate an audible alarm, distinguishable from the surrounding noise 
level, or a visual alarm, that can be seen by a miner regularly 
employed on the working section''.

[[Page 17503]]

    The same modification was made to the alarm signals provision for 
underground locations under Sec.  75.351(c)(4). The proposed rule 
stated that the AMS must automatically provide signals that can be seen 
and heard on all affected working sections and at all affected areas 
where mechanized mining equipment is being installed or removed when 
the CO, smoke, or methane concentration reaches alarm levels. It is 
known that not all miners can see and hear all audible and visual 
signals at all times. For example, a shuttle car operator may be 
emptying a load of coal at the tail piece where noise may prevent the 
operator from hearing the audible signal, yet the operator should be 
able to see the visual signal. Another example would be a shearer 
operator who may not be able to see or hear either alarm. However, the 
stageloader operator would be able to see or hear one of the alarms and 
notify others on the longwall face. It was the intent of the proposed 
rule to require that both audible and visual signals be supplied to the 
affected working section or setup or removal area. It was also intended 
that at least one of these signals would be seen or heard by at least 
one of the miners working in the affected area. This miner would then 
immediately notify other miners in the affected area.
    Paragraph (c)(1) requires that the AMS automatically provide visual 
and audible signals at the designated surface location for any 
interruption of circuit continuity and any electrical malfunction of 
the system. These signals must be of sufficient magnitude to be seen or 
heard by the AMS operator working at this designated surface location. 
Paragraph (c)(1) also requires 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 operational status of all system components. 
Without this knowledge of the operational status of the AMS, the AMS 
operator cannot appropriately respond to alert and alarm signals from 
the system. As such, it is imperative that the system is in proper 
operating condition or that the AMS operator knows when it is not 
operating properly so that remedial measures can be started. By having 
an automatic monitoring system, this information is more readily 
available and the AMS operator can notify appropriate personnel.
    One commenter agreed that the AMS operator should be required to 
see or hear malfunction, alert, and alarm signals from the AMS. This 
would allow the AMS operator to perform other tasks and yet quickly 
respond to AMS signals. The language of this provision has been 
modified from that proposed by specifying that both ``visual and 
audible'' signals must be provided at the designated surface location.
    Final paragraph (c)(2) requires that the AMS automatically provide 
visual and audible signals at the designated surface location when the 
carbon monoxide concentration or methane concentration at any sensor 
reaches the alert level as specified in Sec.  75.351(i). These signals 
must be of sufficient magnitude to be seen or heard by the AMS operator 
working at the designated surface location. The language of the final 
rule has been modified from the proposed rule by specifying that both 
``visual and audible'' signals must be provided. Also, the requirement 
to have the alert signal be distinguishable from the alarm signal has 
been moved to Sec.  75.351(c)(3). The final rule language is consistent 
with language in recently granted petitions by requiring that the AMS 
provide both types of signals at the designated surface location. 
Therefore, there will be no reduction in protection afforded miners 
working at mines with granted petitions containing such a requirement 
once this final rule is effective.
    Final paragraph 75.351(c)(3) requires the AMS to automatically 
provide visual and audible signals at the designated surface location 
distinguishable from alert signals when the carbon monoxide, smoke, or 
methane concentration at any sensor reaches the alarm level as 
specified in Sec.  75.351(i). These signals must be of sufficient 
magnitude to be seen or heard by the AMS operator working at the 
designated surface location. The language of the final rule has been 
modified from the proposal by specifying that both ``visual and 
audible'' signals must be provided. Also, the requirement to have the 
alert signal be distinguishable from the alarm signal has been moved 
here from proposed Sec.  75.351(c)(2). MSHA agrees with the commenters 
that suggested that the AMS operator must ``see or hear'' the required 
alarm signals instead of ``see and hear'' both of them.
    Final Sec.  75.351(c)(4) requires that the AMS automatically 
provide visual and audible signals at all affected working sections and 
at all affected areas where mechanized mining equipment is being 
installed or removed when the carbon monoxide, smoke, or methane 
concentration at any sensor reaches the alarm level as specified in 
Sec.  75.351(i). These signals must be of sufficient magnitude to be 
seen or heard by miners working at these locations. Methane signals 
must be distinguishable from other signals, due to the explosive nature 
of the methane gas. The only changes from the proposed language is that 
the miners underground must either ``see or hear'' the alarm signal 
instead of ``see and hear'' and the signals must be ``of sufficient 
magnitude to be'' seen or heard by miners working at these locations. A 
commenter stated that the alert signals should also be seen or heard by 
miners working inby the alerting AMS sensor because they could be 
endangered by increased levels of CO. Some commenters stated that it 
was unrealistic to expect all miners to see and hear alarms at all 
times. They suggested that alarm signals at underground locations 
should be required to be seen or heard.
    The same commenter also commented that it was not necessary or 
reasonable to have distinguishable methane and CO alarms. MSHA believes 
it is important to distinguish between methane and CO alarms in order 
to adequately assess the situation and to respond appropriately to the 
hazard. For example, if a methane alarm in the immediate return is 
indicated on the working section which cannot be differentiated from CO 
alarms, section personnel might search the belt entry for a fire rather 
than take actions to render harmless the methane accumulation. The 
final rule, consistent with the proposed requirement, is more 
protective than the granted petition requirement that states only that 
the two distinguishable audible and visual signals must be provided, 
not that the alarm signals be distinguishable based on the hazard of CO 
or methane. The technology to have ``distinguishable alarms'' at 
working sections is available, but may require some hardware or 
software changes at some locations.
    As in the proposed rule, final Sec.  75.351(c)(5) requires that the 
AMS automatically provide visual and audible signals at other locations 
as specified in the mine emergency evacuation and firefighting program 
of instruction (Sec.  75.1502) when the carbon monoxide, smoke, or 
methane concentration at any sensor reaches the alarm level as 
specified in Sec.  75.351(i). These signals must be seen or heard by 
miners working at these locations. Methane signals must be 
distinguishable from other signals. A commenter suggested that this 
section should be deleted because it is vague. MSHA disagrees with this 
commenter because the language is clear and there is a need to notify 
affected miners and, therefore, retains the section. Another commenter 
also suggested that the audible alarm be heard above the sound of 
equipment.

[[Page 17504]]

Existing Sec.  75.1103-2(b) incorporates by reference NFPA 72A-1967 
which requires ``Fire alarm systems * * * shall have one or more 
audible signaling appliances * * * so located that their operation will 
be heard clearly regardless of the maximum noise level obtained for 
machinery or other equipment under normal conditions * * *'' This final 
provision requires that the alarm be either heard above the sound of 
equipment or seen; therefore, the language of the final provision 
remains as proposed.
    As in the proposed rule, final paragraph c(6) requires that the AMS 
identify the operational status of all sensors at the designated 
surface location. This provision is consistent with granted petition 
language. The intent of this provision is to assure that the AMS 
operator can readily determine that all of the sensors connected to the 
system are functioning properly. The lack of an alarm from a non-
functioning sensor cannot be considered a safe condition. No comments 
were received on this section; it remains as proposed.
    Paragraph 75.351(c)(7) has been added to the final rule, based on 
MSHA's analysis of the record. This provision requires that the AMS 
automatically provide visual and audible alarm signals at the 
designated surface location, at all affected working sections, and at 
all affected areas where mechanized mining equipment is being installed 
or removed when the carbon monoxide level at any two consecutive 
sensors alert at the same time at levels specified in Sec.  75.351(i). 
These signals must be seen or heard by the AMS operator and miners 
working at these locations.
    Many commenters suggested alert signals should automatically be 
transmitted to each affected working section and areas where mechanized 
mining equipment is being installed or removed. Other commenters 
suggested it is not necessary to report each alert to the sections, and 
that in mines where frequent nuisance and false alert and alarm signals 
occur, miners attach a diminished importance to the signals creating a 
``cry-wolf'' syndrome, in which alert and alarm signals are discounted 
by miners as related to non-fire sources, such as diesel-powered 
equipment or welding fumes, and not to a real fire event. This new 
provision should reduce nuisance alert and alarm signals, thus 
increasing the effectiveness of the AMS as a early-warning fire 
detection system.
    We agree that in many cases the activation of numerous alert 
signals may lead to complacency; however, we also agree that in some 
instances the early notification of working sections and setup or 
removal areas may be desirable. It has been reported that alert levels 
of CO at individual sensors are produced by diesel-powered equipment 
exhaust, cutting and welding operations, hot brakes on mobile 
equipment, and other non-fire conditions. Alert signals have also been 
caused by radio-frequency interference, and these occurrences are often 
of a limited duration. In an analysis of AMS system responses to fires, 
as well as large-scale fire testing by the U.S. Bureau of Mines, 
researchers found that fires may produce alert or higher levels of CO 
at consecutive sensors. When this occurs, automatic notification of 
affected areas is required by this final rule.
    For these reasons, while alert signals at individual sensors need 
not be reported to affected areas, we have included this new 
requirement so that, in the case of consecutive sensors in alert 
status, automatic notification of the affected areas is required. 
Actions required under this section are specified in Sec.  75.352(c). 
Although automatic notification of single alert signals on working 
sections and setup or removal areas is not required, the alert signals 
for individual sensors must still be investigated to determine the CO 
source, as required by 75.352(b).
    The operation of diesel-powered equipment in the belt air course or 
in adjacent air courses is a concern in mines using CO-based fire 
detection systems. Possibly, movement of the equipment in these air 
courses can cause alert or alarm activations at individual sensors as 
the equipment passes nearby. If there are cases where engines cause 
numerous alert and alarm signals due to the machine exhaust containing 
high levels of CO, we believe that the mine operator can perform 
maintenance on the diesel engines which is likely to be effective in 
reducing these levels. Proper maintenance of diesel-powered equipment 
is an important aspect of controlling diesel engine emissions as 
required by Sec.  75.1914--Maintenance of diesel-powered equipment. 
Additionally, the use of diesel discriminating sensors (DDS) has been 
shown to be effective in mines using diesel-powered equipment for 
reducing the frequency of alert signals. The DDS, as well as the 
hydrogen-insensitive and smoke sensor technologies, can be employed to 
reduce or eliminate required evacuations for alert signals.
    Like the proposed rule, final paragraph (d) specifies the location 
and installation requirements for AMS sensors. While no comments were 
received on proposed paragraph (d), comments were received on the 
subparagraphs of paragraph (d). These are discussed below.
    Like the proposed rule, paragraph (d)(1) requires that AMS sensors 
be in the airstream they are intended to monitor to assure that 
measurements are representative of the mine atmosphere. In response to 
comments, MSHA clarified the language of the proposed rule by adding, 
``mine atmosphere in these locations'' to the final provision. No other 
changes were made to the proposed language.
    Paragraph (d)(1) 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 must be positioned downwind in the 
airstream used to ventilate that installation. This provision will 
provide the maximum potential for fire detection, since the products of 
combustion (e.g., CO) will be contained in the air current. Many 
commenters suggested that in order to ensure the proper location for CO 
sensors, a smoke test be conducted prior to sensor installation to 
determine the best location for each sensor, especially in locations 
that can restrict the flow of air, such as around belt headers and 
drives. Commenters continued that these sensors should not be hung just 
over the belt, but staggered across the entry to ``catch'' the 
different air flows on the belt. An example was given of a belt fire at 
the Ohio 11 mine that was not initially detected by the nearest CO 
sensor to the fire because the sensor was not positioned in the air 
stream, but was located behind a post.
    The petition governing the use of belt air at that mine neither 
specified the location of sensors nor required a smoke test to 
determine air flow patterns. Consequently, when the fire started the 
sensor was located in such a way that the highest concentration of CO 
within the entry did not pass by this sensor. MSHA has reviewed the 
accident report of the Ohio 11 mine fire (Accident Investigation Report 
(MSHA, Underground Coal Mine), Non-Injury Fire, Ohio 11, Island Creek 
Coal Company, Morganfield, Union County, Kentucky, May 5, 1995). The 
sensor did detect products of combustion from the fire. The CO sensor 
in question that was nearest to the fire alerted 30 seconds later than 
a sensor located 1,000 feet downwind. The fire was extinguished without 
injury to miners.
    The sensor in question at the Ohio 11 mine was reportedly installed 
out of the air stream behind a post which delayed

[[Page 17505]]

transporting of products of combustion to the sensor location.
    The final rule requires that sensors be installed in the air stream 
to assure that the products of combustion are effectively detected. 
This is consistent with granted petition language which does not 
require a smoke test prior to sensor installation, because the sensors 
must be installed in the airstream. Although a smoke test is not 
required, if a mine operator has a question about proper sensor 
location then a smoke test could be conducted to determine the optimum 
location.
    Final section 75.351(d)(2) requires installation of CO or smoke 
sensors near the center in the upper third of the entry, in a location 
that would not expose personnel working on the system to unsafe 
conditions. The proposed rule language was very similar. The proposed 
rule specified that the sensor was to be installed as ``near the roof 
as feasible'', whereas the final provision specifies that the sensor is 
to be installed ``in the upper third of the entry''. This change was 
the result of comments that are discussed below.
    This requirement is necessary to make certain that sensors are 
placed away from machinery, such as the belt itself, that could be a 
hazard to miners working on the AMS. If the sensors are installed too 
close to machinery, clothing and body parts could be entangled in the 
equipment, thus endangering miners' safety. This provision was modified 
following a comment that sensors should be installed in the upper third 
of belt entries near the center, not as near the roof as feasible, as 
the proposed provision stated. MSHA agrees since the final language 
does not reduce safety since it is consistent with the majority of 
recently granted petitions. We have modified the provision as stated.
    As in the proposed provision, final Sec.  75.351(d)(2) also 
specifies that mine operators not locate sensors in abnormally high 
areas or in other locations where air flow patterns do not permit 
products of combustion to reach the sensors. This requirement was 
developed based on work conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Mines and MSHA 
experience with existing belt air petitions. This work has shown that 
during both smoldering and open combustion fires, the products of 
combustion may stratify. The highest concentrations may be found near 
the mine roof. Accordingly, the U.S. Bureau of Mines 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, as was seen with the Ohio 11 mine fire. For 
example, sensors that are positioned behind posts or equipment will not 
be exposed to the products of combustion contained in the air stream.
    Like the proposed rule, final Sec.  75.351(d)(3) requires that 
methane sensors be installed near the center of the entry at least 12 
inches from the roof, ribs, and floor, paralleling the requirement of 
Sec.  75.323(a) for conducting methane tests. This final standard 
specifies the location for an AMS sensor installed to comply with 
existing Sec.  75.323(d)(1)(ii) which requires the use of an AMS when 
using the return air split alternative. This final provision 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. No comments were received on language in this 
provision; therefore, it remains unchanged from that of the proposed 
rule.
    Like proposed paragraph (e), final paragraph (e) specifies the 
locations along the belt entry where the operator must install sensors 
to monitor for CO or smoke. Minor editorial changes where made to the 
proposed language. The phrase ``of this section'' was deleted and the 
end of the section was modified by changing ``located'' to ``at the 
following locations.''
    A commenter stated that MSHA should require the combined use of 
smoke detectors, methane sensors, and CO sensors with reduced alert/
alarm settings along the belt line. The commenter's rationale is that 
most mines that use belt air are longwall mines. He contends that more 
methane is released in these mines ``since the belt line is on the 
solid.'' He stated that this methane will be transported to the face 
and if the air is traveling at a high velocity, the methane is 
transported to working areas even faster. He gave an example that at 
his mine, methane levels are up to one percent higher at the face when 
there is a ``big proliferation'' of methane outby the belt line. While 
the commenter did not explain how this ``big proliferation'' of methane 
occurs, MSHA requires that sufficient air quantities be directed 
through the belt air course to control methane liberation. Currently, 
existing Sec.  75.362 requires that during each production shift that a 
belt operates, the belt air course must be examined for hazardous 
conditions, including methane. Properly ventilated belt air courses can 
contribute to the dilution of methane and dust on working sections in 
many mines. Methane concentrations in belt air courses are currently 
limited by existing Sec.  75.323. In addition, this final rule requires 
either the use of CO or smoke sensors. Smoke sensors that meet the 
requirements of this final rule currently are not commercially 
available; however, this final rule will allow their use once they 
become commercially available.
    Some commenters stressed that the sensors need to be placed in 
areas that are in the air flow and are not obstructed by ``headers'' 
and ``belt take-up'' mechanisms. Even though MSHA is not sure what the 
commenter meant by ``headers'', we agree that the sensors must be 
properly installed as required by Sec.  75.351(d).
    Like the proposed rule, final 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 installed over 
the loading point would be subject to damage. 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, 
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 specifies that a sensor 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 section loading point since this 
location is often attended by miners; therefore, miners would be in the 
area and aware of any sign of a fire. A commenter stated that there 
should be an alarm box installed on each section, because if there is 
only one alarm box back at the feeder while the continuous miner is 
moving, 30 to 40 minutes may elapse before any person returns to the 
feeder. Therefore, if an alarm sounds it could be over one-half hour 
before the miner is aware of it. Like the proposed rule, the final rule 
requires an alarm unit on each working section (Sec.  75.351(c)(4)) to 
notify miners of a fire or methane hazard. The final provision provides 
the same level of protection as existing granted petition language.
    A commenter suggested that an alarm unit be placed on each end of a 
longwall. Due to the length of some faces, the commenter contended that 
it could be over one half hour before anyone would be at the transfer 
point to see the alarm. The commenter also suggested that an alarm box 
be placed by the power center as well. MSHA

[[Page 17506]]

disagrees with the commenter because the standard requires that the 
alarm signals be seen or heard. It is the responsibility of the mine 
operator to ensure that this requirement is met. If one alarm unit at 
the stage loader is not sufficient to meet this requirement, other 
alarm units may be necessary. Another option for the mine operator to 
consider could be to automatically de-energize the longwall equipment 
when an alarm signal is received on the section alarm unit in order for 
miners to see or hear the alarms. The final language in the provision 
remains as proposed and provides the same level of protection as a 
similar requirement in granted petitions.
    Like the proposed rule, final paragraph (e)(2) requires that a 
sensor be located upwind, at 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 provision requires 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 (i.e., a 
panel belt). Also, if two belt air splits join, this paragraph requires 
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. No comments were received directly addressing this 
provision; therefore, the final language in the provision remains as 
proposed.
    Like the proposed rule, final paragraph (e)(3) requires 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. In areas where the air velocity in the belt entry is 
less than 50 fpm, the sensor spacing must be reduced to 350 feet. Some 
commenters supported a reduced sensor spacing when velocity levels are 
less than 50 fpm. Other commenters suggested a sensor spacing of 325 or 
300 feet, based on NIOSH research that showed sensor spacing at 
approximately 344 feet in zero flow conditions is equivalent to 1,000 
foot spacing with 50 fpm air velocity. MSHA has re-evaluated the 
spacing requirement, based on the comments. We recognize that there 
will be some air movement in the belt entry and zero-flow conditions 
will not exist. We have consulted with NIOSH on this subject and they 
have concurred that spacing sensors at 350 feet is appropriate.
    In addition, another commenter requested the grandfathering of the 
2,000-foot sensor spacing requirement from older granted belt air 
petitions. That is, if this is allowed, it would mean that mines with 
existing granted petitions that require 2,000-foot sensor spacing would 
not have to implement the 1,000-foot sensor spacing required in this 
final rule in areas of the mine developed prior to the effective date 
of this final rule. There are 16 mines with granted petitions that 
specify the 2,000-foot spacing. However, some of these mines are no 
longer active, while others have implemented new reduced spacing 
interval of 1,000-foot sensor spacing. There are another 4 active 
mines, working under older granted petitions, that do not even specify 
sensor spacing, and therefore, have implemented either a 2,000-foot 
spacing or a combination of 2,000- and 1,000-foot sensor spacing.
    MSHA disagrees that mines with petitions that require 2,000-foot 
sensor spacing should be allowed to keep this spacing in portions of 
the mine developed prior to the effective date of this rule. Our 
experience indicates that the 1,000-foot spacing provides an added 
level of early-warning fire detection. We are not opposed to giving 
this limited number of mines more time to comply with this provision 
because the AMS may require significant modification in order to comply 
with not only this requirement but also Sec.  75.351(r). Mines with the 
2,000-foot spacing requirement will have a longer period to install 
sensors at the 1,000-foot spacing in older parts of their mines. The 
final provision remains as proposed except it now requires that ``All 
sensors must be installed at the 1,000-foot spacing, no later than 
August 2, 2004.''
    For mines using an AMS with CO or smoke sensors for fire detection 
in the belt entry, as was proposed, final Sec.  75.351(e)(3), requires 
a minimum velocity of 50 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 with granted petitions 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 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 the velocity is less than 50 fpm to provide adequate fire 
protection capabilities. One commenter suggested reducing spacing 
further to 344 feet, but MSHA has determined that the proposed spacing 
of 350 feet is reasonable. We have consulted with NIOSH on this subject 
and they have concurred that spacing sensors at 350 feet is 
appropriate. Therefore, the language in the final provision remains as 
proposed.
    Like the proposed rule, final 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. The final rule has 
added the phrase, ``for a single transfer point'' based on comments and 
now reads, ``If the belt drive, tailpiece, and/or take-up for a single 
transfer point 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''.
    Many comments were received on the language in this section, 
claiming it was confusing in that it may allow for the monitoring of a 
single belt flight, no matter what length, by a single sensor, thus 
replacing the proposed standard requirement of 1,000-foot sensor 
spacing along the belt. Commenters believed, because each belt flight 
has a drive unit, tailpiece, transfer point, and take-up, that a single 
sensor could monitor the entire belt flight. This was not our 
intention. We intended in the proposed rule that a belt drive and 
tailpiece of the subsequent belt flight on to which coal is transferred 
can be monitored with a single sensor rather than requiring a single 
sensor for each component. Section 75.351(e) includes five 
requirements, all of which are applicable for mines using belt air. To 
clarify our intention and to avoid confusion, we have amended this 
section by adding ``for a single transfer point'' to Sec.  
75.351(e)(4).
    Like the proposed rule, final paragraph (e)(5) allows the district 
manager to require additional sensors as mine conditions warrant and 
states, ``At other locations in any entry that is part of the belt air 
course as required and specified in the mine ventilation plan.'' MSHA 
added the modifier ``mine'' to clarify that the ventilation plan is the 
one approved for a particular mine.
    As belt drive configurations often require altering the belt entry, 
additional sensors may be required in this area. Also, other areas may 
require

[[Page 17507]]

additional monitoring due to unusual entry shape or air flow patterns. 
The location of additional sensors must be specified in the mine 
ventilation plan. One commenter suggested that the representative of 
miners be involved in the mine operator's decision to install 
additional sensors. Existing Sec.  75.370(b) already allows the 
representative of miners to submit timely comments to the district 
manager, in writing, for consideration during the ventilation plan 
process. Therefore, since this suggestion is already part of the 
existing plan approval process, this provision language remains 
unchanged from that of the proposed rule.
    Like the proposed rule, final 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 must be located 
in the primary escapeway within 500 feet of the working section and 
where mechanized mining equipment is being installed or removed. In 
addition, another sensor must be located within 500 feet inby the 
beginning of the panel. The point-feed sensor required by Sec.  
75.350(d)(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 these requirements.
    Some commenters suggested that this provision is not necessary and 
that it is not required in any of the granted petitions. MSHA believes 
that the sensors provide an increased level of protection that enables 
the source of the fire to be quickly identified and minimizes the 
exposure to products of combustion, such as smoke and CO. Thus, this 
provision will increase protections to miners. Other commenters 
suggested that it would be expensive to place sensors in the primary 
escapeway. Under most circumstances MSHA believes that these costs 
would be minimal relative to the cost of the AMS, in general. Also, a 
commenter would like clarified that the phrase ``within 500 feet of the 
working section'' means tailpiece of the belt, i.e., the ``loading 
point'' on the section and the start of the escapeway. MSHA agrees with 
the commenter's interpretation. However, the definition for working 
section in Sec.  75.2 states that the working section is ``* * *from 
the loading point to and including the working faces.'' Therefore, no 
changes in the rule are necessary. The final language remains unchanged 
from what was proposed, except that the phrase ``and where mechanized 
mining equipment is being installed or removed'' has been added to 
clarify our intent. There was also an editorial change to break one 
sentence into two sentences for clarity (``In addition, another sensor 
must be located within 500 feet inby the beginning of the panel. The 
point-feed sensor required by Sec.  75.350(d)(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.'')
    Like the proposed rule, final Sec. Sec.  75.351(g)(1) and 
75.351(g)(2) specify the location for sensors for monitoring return air 
splits under the return air split alternative (Sec.  75.323(d)). Two 
commenters suggested that the methane sensors required by Sec.  
75.351(g)(1) be located on the face prior to the air starting down the 
longwall tailgate return entry to protect the sensors, the cables, and 
persons required to work on the sensors. A sensor placed at this 
location would not provide a methane reading between the last working 
place on a working section and where that split of air meets another 
split of air, or the location at which the split is used to ventilate 
seals or worked-out areas as specified in existing Sec.  75.323(c). 
Therefore, the language of Sec.  75.351(g)(1) remains unchanged from 
the proposed rule, except a minor editorial change removed the word 
``or'' from the proposed language. It now reads ``* * *last working 
place, longwall, or shortwall* * *'' instead of the proposed language, 
``last working place, or longwall or shortwall* * *''
    Monitoring in return air courses where auxiliary fans are used is 
addressed by Sec.  75.351(g)(2). This provision requires an AMS to 
monitor the mine atmosphere for methane concentration at two locations. 
Like the proposed rule, final Sec.  75.351(g)(2)(i) states that sensors 
must be located 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. 
No comments were received on this provision, and it remains unchanged 
from that proposed.
    Like the proposed rule, final Sec.  75.351(g)(2)(ii) requires 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 allows for 
the monitoring of the methane concentration near the beginning and the 
end of the immediate return. By utilizing two sensors, the mine 
operator will be able to determine if excessive methane levels are 
being produced from the sealed or worked-out areas, or if the methane 
is present in the return prior to ventilating these areas. The AMS must 
provide an alarm when either sensor reaches 1.5 percent methane. This 
concentration specified in Sec.  75.351(i)(1) is the action level 
specified for methane levels in the existing Sec.  75.323(d)(2). No 
comments were received on this provision, and it remains unchanged from 
the proposed rule.
    Like the proposed rule, final Sec.  75.351(h) retains the 
requirement of existing Sec. Sec.  75.340(a)(1)(ii) and 
75.340(a)(2)(ii). Under these existing requirements, when the mine 
operator chooses to monitor these locations in lieu of venting the air 
to the return air course, mine operators must install at least one CO 
or smoke sensor located downwind no greater than 50 feet, from the 
electrical installation to monitor transformer stations, battery 
charging stations, substations, rectifiers, and water pumps. Electrical 
installations include transformer stations, battery charging stations, 
substations, rectifiers, and water pumps.
    Some commenters suggested if a CO sensor is used that it be placed 
no closer than 50 feet and not further than 100 feet from the battery 
charging stations to allow for the dilution of hydrogen. Hydrogen is 
produced as a by-product of the charging process, and adversely affects 
the CO sensors by causing a false indication of CO when hydrogen is 
present. A commenter suggested the use of a CO sensor to monitor 
electrical installations because reliable smoke sensors are not 
presently commercially available. Another commenter would like the 
sensors to be installed within 50 feet of the electrical installation.
    Existing Sec.  75.340(a)(1)(ii) already requires the sensor used to 
monitor battery charging stations be unaffected by hydrogen. Since the 
publication of the proposed rule, MSHA has evaluated a hydrogen-
insensitive CO sensor which has been shown to be effective for 
monitoring for fires near locations where hydrogen gas may be produced, 
such as battery charging stations. If the sensor spacing required by 
this section is inappropriate for CO sensors due to the presence of 
hydrogen, the use of the hydrogen-insensitive sensors can resolve the 
problem, thus protecting miners from the hazard of fire. The final 
provision remains unchanged from the proposed language.
    Final Sec.  75.351(i) establishes and standardizes specific alert 
and alarm settings for any AMS used in accordance with Sec. Sec.  
75.323(d)(1)(ii),

[[Page 17508]]

75.340(a)(1)(ii), 75.340(a)(2)(ii), 75.350(b), 75.350(d), or 75.362(f). 
The final rule language modifies the proposed rule language by 
renumbering Sec.  75.350(c) to Sec.  75.350(d) due to the split in the 
final rule of proposed Sec.  75.350(c) into two sections (Sec. Sec.  
75.350(c) and (d)). The alert and alarm levels are consistent with 
alert and alarm levels in recently granted petitions, thus providing 
the same level of protection to miners.
    One commenter suggested that alert and alarm levels be established 
on a mine-by-mine basis due to various complicating factors, such as 
``volume of diesel equipment that is used in mines, placement of 
sensors, the velocities of air and different things of that nature that 
should be taken into consideration when the levels of alert and alarm 
are to be established.'' MSHA agrees that some factors may require 
reducing alert and alarm levels below 5 and 10 ppm above ambient, 
respectively. The 5 and 10 ppm levels above ambient are considered to 
be maximum levels and cannot be increased to account for the use of 
diesel-powered equipment. Both the final rule and the proposed rule 
allow for variations in the ambient CO concentrations to account for 
diesel equipment operation or other sources of CO such as natural 
liberation from the coal itself. Other methods, such as diesel-
discriminating sensors, are available that have been shown to 
effectively deal with the effects of diesel exhaust. The alert and 
alarm levels can be lowered from 5 and 10 ppm above ambient, 
respectively, if high air quantities dilute the products of combustion. 
As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, the maximum velocity in the 
belt air course is 500 fpm without specific district manager approval. 
Such approval would require reduced alert and alarm levels and would be 
addressed in the mine's ventilation plan.
    Like proposed paragraph (i)(1), the final rule requires that when 
an AMS is used to monitor methane concentrations in return air splits 
to comply with Sec.  75.323(d)(1)(ii), the AMS alarms at 1.5 percent 
methane. If a methane alarm signal is received by the AMS operator, 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 
under 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 level is 
specified. The alarm must be given at the working section so personnel 
can start the actions required by existing Sec.  75.323(d)(2). No 
comments on this section of the proposed rule were received, so the 
final provision remains unchanged from the proposed rule.
    Existing Sec.  75.340(a) requires the ventilation of specified 
electrical installations with intake air and permits options, such as 
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 which can be used to ventilate ``working places'' when an 
AMS is used to monitor in accordance with existing Sec.  75.351. The 
option of using intake air which can be used to ventilate ``working 
places'' is provided to allow the mine operator to use this air to 
ventilate other areas before directing the air to the return air course 
and out of the mine. By monitoring the electrical installations, which 
are potential fire sources, the mine operator provides an additional 
protection by providing fire detection for these locations. For 
example, if an electrical installation is located such that it is 
vented to the return air course, it is not required to be monitored by 
an AMS under any regulations. Although the installation may be enclosed 
in a noncombustible structure or equipped with a fire suppression 
system, the mine operator would have difficulty detecting the fire at 
its early stages of development. This option under existing Sec.  
75.340(a)(1)(ii) requires that the installation be monitored for CO or 
smoke using the AMS. The sensor at this location provides an early 
warning of fire.
    Some commenters suggested the rule allow for higher alert and alarm 
levels if there is a zero CO ambient level. This approach attempts to 
account for ambient CO levels when setting alert and alarm levels that 
would be higher than what is allowed by this final rule. Commenters 
also suggested that these alert and alarm levels apply only to the belt 
entry and not to the intake escapeway. The final rule's alert and alarm 
levels apply to both the belt entry and to the primary escapeway. In 
the absence of research on fire detection in entries other than the 
belt, we relied upon the best available guidance which indicates early 
fire detection can be accomplished using alert and alarm levels 
established in the final rule. Thus, we are providing protection 
greater than that provided by granted petition requirements.
    One commenter argued that alert and alarms levels in this intake 
should be 25 and 50 ppm CO, respectively. These levels are much higher 
than those traditionally used by mine operators for early-warning fire 
detection. The results of years of research by NIOSH have provided 
sufficient documentation supporting the use of 5 and 10 ppm above 
ambient maximum alert and alarm levels for CO in the belt entry (RI 
9380). No research on fire detection for air courses other than the 
belt air course was submitted to the record and the Agency is unaware 
of any such research.
    As proposed, final paragraph (i)(2) also requires that an AMS with 
smoke sensors alarm at a smoke optical density of 0.022 per meter. 
There is no alert level for smoke sensors required since these 
detectors do not typically provide an analog signal which can provide 
multiple levels of detection. On the other hand, CO sensors provide a 
full range of measurement so that multiple levels of detection are 
available. Because some belt materials do not produce sufficient CO for 
detection by an AMS when the material is frictionally heated (such as 
belt slippage) smoke sensors can provide greater detection of this 
condition than CO sensors. The 0.022 per meter smoke optical density 
requirement is the same as 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 former 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 [U.S. Bureau of Mines]. 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

[[Page 17509]]

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 lowers the optical density to the proper 
level of 0.022 per meter when fire detection relies on smoke sensors.
    We have standardized the alert and alarm levels in Sec.  75.351 
from those required by some petitions to provide a more practical 
approach to setting alert and alarm levels. Paragraph (i)(2) requires 
an alert signal at 5 ppm and alarm at 10 ppm CO above the ambient level 
based on U.S. Bureau of Mines research, Agency experience with 
petitions, and the Advisory Committee recommendation. These levels will 
provide early-warning capability. A commenter protested the assignment 
of alert and alarm levels because, without a specified method for 
determining the ambient level at a mine, the commenter cannot be 
certain levels specified by any particular operator are accurate. The 
commenter continued by saying that the alert and alarm levels should 
never exceed 5 and 10 ppm, respectively. Another commenter testified 
that alert and alarm settings must be established on a mine-by-mine 
basis since mine-specific conditions that affect CO levels will vary. 
The method for establishing the ambient level is consistent with 
existing Sec.  75.371(hh). The maximum alert and alarm levels are 5 and 
10 ppm CO, respectively, and can be reduced, as warranted, depending 
upon mine conditions, by the district manager. Another commenter 
testified that the alert and alarm levels specified in granted 
petitions should be grandfathered, since they have proven to be 
effective without the occurrence of nuisance alarms.
    Alert and alarm 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 (RI 9380) 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 
(multi-axis charts) 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 mine 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.
    Diesel-discriminating sensors have proven to be effective in 
reducing the frequency of nuisance 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 limiting CO alert 
and alarm levels to 5 and 10 ppm above ambient, respectively.
    The final rule 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 final rule permits the use 
of time delays or other techniques to reduce non-fire related alert and 
alarm signals. This provision maintains the early-warning fire 
detection capability of the AMS. Elevated alert and alarm levels reduce 
the detectability of the AMS. Some commenters suggested higher alert 
and alarm levels; however, 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. Higher alert and alarm levels would 
delay the early-warning fire detection response by appropriate 
personnel because higher concentrations of the products of combustion 
would be required to trigger alert and alarm signals. Therefore, this 
final provision remains as proposed.
    Like the proposed rule, final paragraph (i)(3) establishes alert 
and alarm levels when an AMS is used to conduct the methane tests 
required by existing Sec.  75.362(f). It requires the AMS to provide an 
alert signal at 1.0 percent methane and an alarm signal at 1.5 percent 
methane. If a methane alert or alarm signal is received by the AMS 
operator, the actions specified in Sec.  75.323(d)(2) must be taken. 
This is consistent with the action levels stipulated under existing 
Sec. Sec.  75.323(c)(1) and 75.323(c)(2) for methane in any return air 
split between the last working place on a working section and where 
that split of air meets another split of air or the location to 
ventilate seals or worked-out areas. Since existing Sec.  75.323(c) 
requires specific actions at these methane concentrations, personnel 
will receive timely notification with these alert and alarm levels. The 
final rule does not preclude the mine operator from using alert and 
alarm levels that are lower than those required by this provision. No 
comments were received on this provision, therefore, it remains as 
proposed.
    Like the proposed rule, final Sec.  75.351(j)--Establishing CO 
ambient levels, requires 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(d). In order 
for an AMS with CO sensors to be effective, the ambient levels must 
represent conditions over a broad range of mining activities. We 
recognize that the ambient levels in the mine may vary because of 
mining conditions and activities, such as the use of diesel-powered 
equipment and varying conditions of roadways which vary the engine 
loads for diesel-powered equipment. Since mining activities vary from 
mine to mine, we believe the mine ventilation plan is the most 
effective tool to set the ambient levels since this is consistent with 
existing Sec.  75.371(hh). Therefore, the Agency chooses to continue 
the requirements contained in the granted petitions that the ambient 
levels, and the method for determining the ambient levels, 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 levels must be specified and approved in the mine 
ventilation plan. Further information concerning the setting of an 
ambient level can be found in the discussion for the definition of CO 
ambient level. A commenter, in a written submission, wanted specific 
language included in the final rule on how the ambient is established:

    (1) A properly calibrated carbon monoxide sensor(s) shall be 
used for an ambient determination. Measurements from all sensors in 
the conveyor belt entry shall be used to determine the ambient level 
for each separate conveyor belt air split. Continuous readings shall 
be taken and recorded for a total of five (5) production shifts to 
establish a mine history of carbon monoxide levels. The average of 
the data collected for each separate conveyor air split will 
determine its ambient level. (2) Ambient levels shall be

[[Page 17510]]

representative of normal operating conditions. Diesel equipment 
shall not be unnecessarily idled in the air split where the ambient 
level is being determined. (a) The cross-sectional areas where 
velocity readings are taken which are used for alert and alarm level 
determination shall be measured at locations in the entry 
representative of the cross-sectional areas found throughout the 
entry and not at locations where the entry is abnormally high (i.e. 
belt drives) or low (i.e. under overcasts). For belt entries that 
are common with other entries, the sum of cross-sectional areas for 
belt entries and the common entries shall be used.

    MSHA's response is that the submitted method is an adequate method 
to determine an ambient. However, it is not the only method available. 
Other methods include the use of bottle samples analyzed using a gas 
chromatograph to determine actual concentrations of CO in the belt 
entry or simply setting the ambient at zero ppm without verification 
due to the absence of diesel-powered equipment and naturally-occurring 
CO in the mine. MSHA's experience is that the ambient method is 
appropriately specified through the mine ventilation plan process and 
is consistent with existing Sec.  75.371(hh). Therefore, the final rule 
retains the same language as the proposed rule.
    Like the proposed rule, final paragraph (k) requires that an AMS 
installed in accordance with Sec. Sec.  75.323(d)(1)(ii), 
340(a)(1)(ii), 340(a)(2)(ii), 75.350(b), 75.350(d), or 75.362(f) be 
installed and maintained by personnel trained in the installation and 
maintenance of the system. It also requires that the system be 
maintained in proper operating condition. The final rule language 
modifies the proposed rule language by renumbering Sec.  75.350(c) to 
Sec.  75.350(d) due to the split in the final rule of proposed Sec.  
75.350(c) into two sections (Sec. Sec.  75.350(c) and (d)).
    Agency experience is that proper functioning of an AMS is directly 
related to the quality of the maintenance provided. For example, in 
mines where sensors are not properly calibrated, these sensors will not 
be able to provide appropriate early-warning fire detection capability. 
In paragraph (k) we require trained personnel to perform the 
maintenance. Although we did not include a requirement for a specific 
training plan for maintenance personnel, as we explained earlier in 
this preamble, this training could be conducted under existing training 
programs. Some commenters testified that the Agency should include 
specific training and retraining requirements for AMS maintenance 
personnel because the requirements cannot be covered in the annual 
refresher training. MSHA's experience indicates that this training is 
already conducted by the operator as task training. Therefore, the 
final rule retains the same language as the proposed rule.
    Like the proposed rule, paragraph (l) of Sec.  75.351 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 Sec. Sec.  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. A list of 
NRTLs can be found at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html. 
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 to 
ensure reliable fire detection. Currently, because the AMS is being 
used as an ``Automatic fire sensor and warning device system'' it must 
comply with the 1967 National Fire Code (Sec.  75.1103-2; Automatic 
fire sensors approved components; installation requirements). In the 
proposed rule, MSHA solicited 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. A commenter 
encouraged modification of Sec.  75.1103-2(b) by the Agency adopting 
the latest edition of the National Fire Alarm Code, NFPA 72-2002 
because the 1967 edition is ``obsolete.'' The current reference in that 
section is the 1967 edition of NFPA 72A, ``Standard for the 
Installation, Maintenance and Use of Local Protective Signaling Systems 
for Guard's Tour, Fire Alarm and Supervisory Service.'' The commenter 
further said that the NFPA standards for protective signaling systems 
(visual and audible signal systems) have evolved substantially since 
1967.
    The 2002 edition includes many requirements that are substantial 
revisions and additions to those found in the 1967 document. The 
commenter noted that the requirements of NFPA 72A, as well as other 
related standards, have been updated many times and have been 
consolidated into a single National Fire Alarm Code since 1993.
    As the commenter points out, the newer NFPA standard does not 
directly address the use of protective signaling systems in coal mines. 
Additionally, the commenter implied that application of the newer NFPA 
standard to coal mines was not specifically contemplated when the 
standard was developed. The 2002 NFPA standard is a voluminous document 
that is a compilation of several different standards, with many 
requirements that are not applicable to AMSs and therefore is beyond 
the scope of this belt air final rule.
    The section to which the commenter proposed changes is Sec.  
75.1103-2(b). This section is a part of Subchapter L, ``Fire 
Protection,'' and gives requirements for the installation of automatic 
fire sensors on all belts. A revision to this section would change the 
requirements for all belt fire detection systems, not just those 
systems installed in intake air courses to ventilate working sections 
and setup or removal areas. A revision to this section will require 
additional study that is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
    AMS components are required to be of a type listed and installed in 
accordance with the recommendations of a nationally recognized testing 
laboratory (NRTL) approved by the Secretary. This provision 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 
because the Agency has determined that consensus standards exist. It is 
expected that NRTL approval of sensors will be the most prevalent 
vehicle for acceptance of the sensors. A review of the standards shows 
that ANSI/ISA92.02.01 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. No other comments were 
received on this provision, therefore it remains as proposed.
    Like the proposed rule, final paragraph (m) of the final rule 
permits the use of reasonable time delays when there is a demonstrated 
need and when the delays are approved as part of the ventilation plan. 
Time delays would be approved in order to prevent the triggering of 
alert or alarm signals when the CO being detected by the AMS is from a 
non-fire source, such as diesel-powered mining equipment. MSHA has 
approved mine ventilation plans that have included time delays of up to 
3 minutes. This practice is consistent with

[[Page 17511]]

requirements in recently granted petitions.
    We are requiring 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. An example could be frequent 
non-fire alert and alarm signals caused by diesel exhaust emissions 
which exist for a short duration for any particular sensor as diesel-
powered equipment is moving through air course. The total time delay 
for any given sensor must not exceed three minutes. Agency experience 
shows this time to be the maximum delay necessary to eliminate alert 
and alarm signals generated by diesel-powered equipment. The final 
provision also permits other computer or administrative techniques 
(such as 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 sensor 
signals provided they are approved in the mine ventilation plan. The 
use of reasonable time delays and other approaches, such as diesel-
discriminating sensors, has been successful in reducing the number of 
alert and alarm signals from CO that are not a result of a fire or 
heating. The three minute time delay required by this final rule is a 
maximum time delay that must have a demonstrated need. This is not a 
blanket approval of time-delays. The district manager has the authority 
to disapprove their use.
    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 expect correction of this condition in accordance with 
existing standards, before we would consider approving a time delay.
    Comments received on this provision generally agree with MSHA's 
reasoning for the need to reduce the occurrence of nuisance alarms due 
to other sources of combustion products to reduce miner complacency, as 
discussed earlier in this preamble. The provision remains unchanged 
from that proposed, except one editorial change was made that moved the 
sentence referring to ``these time delays are limited to no more than 
three minutes'' one sentence up in the paragraph and another editorial 
change was made to specify ``alert and alarm'' sensor signals.
    Like the proposed rule, final paragraph (n) deals with the 
examination, testing, and calibration of sensors used as part of an 
AMS. Many commenters suggested that calibration be done during non-
production shifts to avoid confusion on the working sections when 
sensors are calibrated. Part of the calibration process involves 
sounding of alarms on working sections. One commenter suggested that 
part of the calibration process include verification that the alarm 
actually activate on the working sections. It is possible that some of 
the alarms cannot be heard in all locations above the noise of 
machinery; therefore, placement of the visual alarm should be given 
careful consideration. Other commenters focused on the need for two-way 
communication between the AMS operator, the maintenance technician 
conducting the calibration, and the miners on the working sections to 
make sure that everyone in the mine understands that calibration of the 
alarms is being conducted, thus reducing confusion. This final rule 
requires two-way communication between the AMS operator and maintenance 
personnel (Sec.  75.351(b)) to enhance safety by informing affected 
personnel that the activated alarm is due to sensor calibration and not 
due to a fire event (Sec.  75.351(n)(4)).
    Final paragraph (n)(1) requires that at least once each shift when 
belts are operated as part of a production shift, sensors installed in 
accordance with Sec. Sec.  75.350(b) and 75.350(d) used to detect 
carbon monoxide or smoke, and alarms installed in accordance with Sec.  
75.350(b) must be visually examined. The change from the proposed rule 
adds the reference to Sec.  75.350(d), formerly Sec.  75.350(c) of the 
proposed rule, that addresses AMS sensors at point-feed locations.
    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. A visual examination will enable these conditions to be 
discovered and repaired, thus maintaining the level of safety afforded 
miners. As discussed earlier, a sensor that is improperly located, may 
not detect the products of combustion as effectively as one that is 
properly installed and maintained. Since existing 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 examination.
    Final paragraph (n)(1) states 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. 
The requirement for such an examination was developed to be consistent 
with on-shift examination requirements in existing Sec.  75.362(b). We 
believe that inoperable or inappropriately placed sensors can be found 
and the necessary corrective action taken in a timely manner. Many 
commenters on this provision agree that during the on-shift examination 
many hazards are found, including fires along the belt lines. Another 
commenter suggested that the visual examination include other areas of 
the mine, such as rectifiers, substations, battery charging stations, 
water pumps, and power centers that are ventilated to the belt line. 
Finding these hazards in a timely manner increases the safety afforded 
miners. MSHA agrees with the commenter. Existing Sec.  75.360(b)(9) 
requires preshift examination of electrical installations referred to 
in Sec.  75.340(a). Therefore, AMS sensors in these areas will be 
examined during the preshift examination of these installations.
    A commenter suggested that a record be made of all visual 
inspections, to assure that they are being completed. The conditions 
identified by this commenter are addressed by existing standards. 
MSHA's existing Sec.  75.363 requires that a certified person must make 
a record of hazardous conditions. The record will include improperly 
located and damaged sensors because these conditions are considered to 
be hazardous. This existing provision will continue to be in effect. 
MSHA believes that it is not necessary to record conditions that are 
not hazardous. Therefore, no changes have been made in the proposed 
provision and it remains as proposed.
    Like the proposed rule, final paragraph (n)(2) requires that at 
least once every seven days alarms for an AMS installed in accordance 
with Sec. Sec.  75.350(b) and 75.350(d) must be functionally tested for 
proper operation. The final rule language modifies the proposed rule 
language by renumbering Sec.  75.350(c) to Sec.  75.350(d) due to the 
split in the final rule of proposed Sec.  75.350(c) into two sections 
(Sec. Sec.  75.350(c) and (d)).
    Testing of alarms is critical to assure that they will function 
properly when needed. The testing method is dependent upon the type of 
alarm installed but should include application of calibration gas to 
selected sensors.

[[Page 17512]]

Some commenters to this provision suggested that testing every seven 
days is too restrictive and were in favor of a longer testing interval 
of up to 10 days to cover holidays and weekends. Other commenters 
agreed that a 7-day period would be appropriate. Expanding to a 10-day 
cycle would decrease the number of examinations from 52 to 36 per year, 
thus adversely affecting safety by reducing the number of examinations 
over the course of the year and subsequently increasing the probability 
that a hazardous condition could go undetected for a longer period of 
time. This final provision requires the testing of alarms for proper 
operation at least once every 7 days; it remains as proposed except for 
the renumbering of Sec.  75.350(c) to Sec.  75.350(d). This is 
comparable to requirements in existing Sec.  75.364 for weekly 
examinations for hazardous conditions, and air and methane measurements 
in underground coal mines.
    Like the proposed rule, final paragraph (n)(3)(i) requires that, at 
intervals not to exceed 31 days, 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(d) must be calibrated in accordance with the 
manufacturer's calibration specifications. The final paragraph also 
requires that calibration must be done with a known concentration of CO 
in air sufficient to activate the alarm. The final provision remains 
unchanged from that of the proposed rule except for the renumbering of 
Sec.  75.350(c) to Sec.  75.350(d). The final rule language modifies 
the proposed rule language by renumbering Sec.  75.350(c) to Sec.  
75.350(d) due to the split in the final rule of proposed Sec.  
75.350(c) into two sections (Sec. Sec.  75.350(c) and (d)).
    Some commenters suggested that this calibration interval for CO 
sensors be increased to between 45 to 70 days and would ``not really'' 
create a safety hazard. MSHA disagrees with the commenters because the 
proper operation of the AMS sensors is central to the safe operation of 
the system that protects both the miners and the mine itself and is 
consistent with calibration schedules in granted petitions. The 
calibration schedule ensures that the AMS sensors are properly 
functioning, thus providing an efficient early-warning fire detection 
system. Miner safety is protected by the calibration schedule due to 
the fact that periodic calibration adjusts the response characteristics 
of these sensors to the correct settings.
    Like the proposed rule, final paragraph (n)(3)(ii) requires that 
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(d) must be 
functionally tested every 31 days in accordance with the manufacturer's 
calibration specifications. The final rule language modifies the 
proposed rule language by renumbering Sec.  75.350(c) to Sec.  
75.350(d) due to the split in the final rule of proposed Sec.  
75.350(c) into two sections (Sec. Sec.  75.350(c) and (d)).
    The testing method is dependent upon the type of smoke sensor 
installed. Functional testing may not be limited to just the 
appropriate response by the sensor but also could include receiving the 
appropriate signal at the designated surface location. As stated in the 
proposed rule, the nature of the functional test would be to subject 
the sensor to one of the following methods to assure proper sensor 
response: ``(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'' (2002 NFPA 72). This is the accepted method of 
calibrating smoke sensors as set forth in the consensus standard NFPA 
72 (2002).
    It has been our experience through granted petitions and existing 
standards that the calibration schedule for CO sensors in this final 
rule is sufficient to assure proper operation. Our experience is also 
consistent with manufacturers' recommendations. Miner safety is 
protected by the testing schedule due to the fact that periodic tests 
inform the AMS operator that the sensor is operating within 
manufacturer's specifications. This final Sec.  75.351(n)(3)(ii) 
mandates a maximum time period of 31 days between sensor functional 
tests. However, final Sec.  75.351(k) requires that AMSs be maintained 
in proper operating condition. If experience at an individual mine 
indicates that more frequent calibration is necessary to maintain 
proper operating condition pursuant to Sec.  75.351(k), the operator 
must calibrate the sensor at an interval, which may be less than every 
31 days, to assure that the AMS sensor is maintained in proper 
operating condition.
    Like the proposed rule, final paragraph (n)(3)(iii) requires that 
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 the 
alarm. No comments were received on these sections of the proposed 
rule, and therefore they remain as proposed.
    However, MSHA did receive many comments on the need for personnel 
in affected sections to be notified prior to, and upon completion of, 
calibration of sensors in order to avoid miners becoming unresponsive 
to alarms. Also, commenters suggested that it was important to make 
sure that the alarm actually activates on affected sections. MSHA 
agrees with the commenters on the issue of calibration notification and 
has added a new paragraph, Sec.  75.351(n)(3)(iv), to this section. It 
requires that if the alert or alarm signal will be activated during 
calibration of sensors, the AMS operator must be notified prior to, and 
upon completion of, calibration. The AMS operator must then notify 
miners on affected working sections, areas where mechanized mining 
equipment is being installed or removed, or other areas designated in 
the approved emergency evacuation and firefighting program of 
instruction (Sec.  75.1502) when calibration will activate alarm 
signals, and when calibration is completed.
    Like the proposed rule, final paragraph (n)(4) requires 
certification of the accuracy of calibration gases as directly 
traceable to National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 
standards. When these referenced standards are not available for a 
specific gas the final paragraph (n)(4) requires calibration gases be 
traceable to an analytical standard which is prepared using a method 
traceable to NIST. This provision provides for the use of new 
technology for fire detection. This paragraph is necessary since the 
accuracy of the calibration gas has a direct bearing on the accuracy 
and functional performance of the sensor, and therefore increases 
confidence that the AMS sensor readings are accurate. The traceability 
of the calibration gas directly affects the effectiveness of the AMS 
system, thereby, affecting the safety of miners working underground. 
Without the sensors being properly calibrated, there is no assurance 
that the AMS system is functioning properly. 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.'' In other words, if 
traceability is maintained, the user can be confident that the 
concentration of the calibration gas is as

[[Page 17513]]

stated on the container. 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. No 
comments were received on this section of the proposed rule. The final 
provision remains as proposed.
    Like the proposed rule, final paragraph (o)(1) requires that 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(d), or 75.362(f), 
individuals designated by the operator must make the required records 
by the end of the shift in which the specified event(s) occur. The 
final rule language modifies the proposed rule language by renumbering 
Sec.  75.350(c) to Sec.  75.350(d) due to the split in the final rule 
of proposed Sec.  75.350(c) into two sections (Sec. Sec.  75.350(c) and 
(d)).
    These records will 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. This will 
enhance safety because it will reduce the number of non-fire alerts and 
alarms, thereby reducing the occurrence of the ``cry-wolf syndrome'' 
(ignoring alerts and alarms because of numerous non-fire alerts and 
alarms in the past) underground. One commenter wrote that these 
requirements are far more extensive than any requirements under any of 
our existing petitions for modification and they contend that they are 
not necessary. After a review of granted petitions, MSHA disagrees with 
the comment, because many of the petitions contain similar paperwork 
requirements to document that these actions have been taken. Therefore, 
the language of the final provision remains as was proposed, except for 
the renumbering of Sec.  75.350(c) to Sec.  75.350(d).
    Final Sec.  75.351(o)(1) requires that individuals designated by 
the operator record events related to the AMS as described in Sec.  
75.351(o)(1)(i)-(iii) by the end of the shift in which the event(s) 
occur(s). Proposed Sec.  75.351(o)(1) is almost identical to the final 
rule language except that it uses the term ``responsible persons 
designated by the operator'' to make the records identified in this 
section. A comment on this section requested clarification on the term 
``responsible persons.'' The commenter wanted to know whether this is 
the same ``responsible person'' identified in 30 CFR 75.1501 or does 
MSHA have other criteria for these responsible persons? The commenter 
continued that it would be helpful to know what occupations MSHA 
considers to be included in this phrase. MSHA agrees that the 
responsible person may be the same person as designated in Sec.  
75.1501 or could be someone else. Therefore, in order to avoid 
confusion the term ``responsible person'' was replaced with 
``individuals'' in the final rule. Each mining operation knows what the 
different job categories at its mine are. We will not specify any in 
this final rule.
    The final rule language also modifies the proposed rule language by 
renumbering Sec.  75.350(c) to Sec.  75.350(d) due to the split in the 
final rule of proposed Sec.  75.350(c) into two sections (Sec. Sec.  
75.350(c) and (d)). Other than these clarifications, the final 
provision remains as proposed.
    Like the proposed rule, final paragraph (o)(1)(i) requires that a 
record be kept of all alert and alarm signal activations. The required 
record will include the date, time, location and type of sensor, and 
the cause of the activation. Like the proposed rule, final paragraph 
(o)(1)(ii) requires a record to be made of all AMS malfunctions. This 
record will contain the date, extent, and cause of the malfunction. It 
will 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) will be made by individuals designated by 
the operator. No comments were specifically received on these two 
sections and they remain as proposed.
    Like the proposed rule, final paragraph (o)(1)(iii) requires that a 
record also be maintained of the seven-day test of alert and alarm 
signals, calibrations, and maintenance of the AMS. Unlike the records 
required by Sec. Sec.  75.351(o)(1)(i) and 75.351(o)(1)(ii), the 
records required by paragraph (o)(1)(iii) must be made by the person(s) 
doing the test, calibration, or maintenance. No comments were 
specifically received regarding Sec.  75.351(o)(1)(i) through Sec.  
75.351(o)(1)(iii). However, a general comment focused on the belief 
that the mine operator should be the person responsible to certify the 
records, not the persons doing the tests, calibrations, or maintenance. 
MSHA requires certification by the individuals having firsthand 
knowledge of how the sensors performed during their calibration and 
testing and any maintenance required. This requirement is similar to 
recordkeeping requirements for methane monitor calibration tests found 
under existing Sec.  75.342(a)(4)(ii). Only editorial changes were made 
in this provision. Instead of reading as proposed, ``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''; the final provision 
reads, ``A record of the: seven-day tests of alert and alarm signals; 
calibrations; and maintenance of the AMS must be made by the person(s) 
performing these actions.'' No comments were received regarding this 
section. The final rule language remains the same as was proposed, 
except for the editorial change as stated above.
    Final paragraph (o)(2) requires the person entering the record to 
include their name, 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. Some commenters testified that 
they did not think it was necessary to include the title of the person 
in the log entry. MSHA agrees that it is not necessary to include a 
person's title in the log entry since titles are not consistent across 
the industry and the inclusion of this information does not further 
enhance the safety of miners. Therefore, the word ``title'' was deleted 
from the language of the final provision. No other changes were made to 
the language of the final provision.
    Consistent with other requirements of this subpart, final paragraph 
(o)(3) requires that all records required by this section be maintained 
either 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.'' This requirement is important because these 
records verify that the actions required to be taken to maintain the 
AMS were actually taken. The records help to assure the safety of 
miners. Proposed paragraph (o)(3) had similar language to the final 
rule language but failed to include the term ``either'' when giving the 
mine operator the option of maintaining the records in this section 
either in a secure book that is not susceptible to alteration, or

[[Page 17514]]

electronically in a computer system that is secure and not susceptible 
to alteration. A commenter suggested that if MSHA requires that a hard 
copy with a signature be maintained, that this should preclude a 
requirement that any electronic records being kept. The final provision 
is modified to eliminate any confusion by adding the word ``either.'' 
The provision now states: ``The records required by this section must 
be kept either in a secure book that is not susceptible to alteration 
or electronically in a computer system that is secure and not 
susceptible to alteration.'' In addition, an editorial change was made 
to remove a duplicative phrase ``must be kept'' from the provision 
following the phrase ``* * * secure book that is not susceptible to 
alteration or * * *'' No other changes were made in this provision. 
Accordingly, the final rule language remains unchanged.
    Like the proposed rule, final paragraph (p) requires that all 
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. No comments on this provision were 
received. The final provision remains as proposed.
    Final paragraphs (o) and (p) are consistent with existing standards 
and recently granted petition requirements. These sections are intended 
to assure that these records are retained and made available, and that 
the appropriate level of mine management is made aware of AMS 
conditions or problems requiring attention. The safety purpose of these 
provisions is to analyze the performance of the AMS to ensure continued 
reliable operation of the AMS. The final rule also will 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.
    Like the proposed rule, final paragraph (q) requires that all AMS 
operators be trained annually in the proper operation of the AMS. In 
addition, the final paragraph requires that the mine operator retain a 
record of the content of training, the person conducting the training, 
and the date the training was conducted at the mine for at least one 
year.
    MSHA believes that the training program for an AMS operator should 
address at least two topics: the AMS system operation and legal 
requirements. The AMS system operation includes hardware and software 
issues.
    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 AMS system operation would also include software training. As 
noted in the proposed rule, such training should include at least the 
following subjects as they relate to the AMS:
    1. The basic computer operating systems used, 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.
    Legal requirements include provisions and requirements of the 
ventilation plan, emergency evacuation and fire fighting program of 
instruction, and the requirements of this final rule.
    Finally, AMS operators would need to be trained on the following 
issues:
    1. The provisions and requirements of the mine ventilation plan, 
emergency evacuation and fire fighting program of instruction, and
    2. The requirements of this rule.
    All of this training will assure that the AMS operator maintains 
proficiency in the operation of the AMS and the understanding of his/
her responsibility under this final rule. Such training is necessary 
because, in the event of a mine fire or other emergency, the AMS 
operator will be one of the first individuals to detect a serious 
problem underground based on AMS signals which may require the 
evacuation of the mine.
    Numerous comments were received on this section. Some commenters 
thought that the recommended training for the AMS operator, as outlined 
in the previous paragraphs, was not applicable to many AMS operators. 
It is MSHA's intent that the AMS operator be specifically trained to 
conduct the task of monitoring the AMS and trained to respond 
appropriately to its different signals. It is imperative that the ``AMS 
operator,'' as defined in this final rule, receive annual training on 
conducting the tasks as required. If a mine operator wishes to limit 
the understanding of the AMS operator on ``how'' the system actually 
operates, then it is imperative that this operator have personnel on 
call to handle computer programming and failure issues and the AMS 
operator must be trained to contact such individuals immediately to fix 
problems. In cases where hardware and software issues affect the safety 
of the miners underground, manual monitoring of the belt entry, as 
specified under Sec.  75.352(e), would need to be conducted.
    Other commenters wanted the AMS operator to be better trained in 
all aspects of mine operation. This training would include mine layout, 
location of all workers underground, and a working knowledge of the 
mine's fire and evacuation plan. In addition, a commenter suggested 
that the training provided to the AMS operator be system specific as 
well as be consistent with all aspects of part 48 training.
    MSHA agrees that the AMS operator should have specialized training. 
As indicated earlier, if a mine operator wishes to expand the training 
of the AMS operator beyond what is required by this final rule, then it 
is up to the mine operator to provide that individual with the 
necessary information. MSHA experience with granted petitions and fire 
investigations indicate the final rule's provision is sufficient to 
protect safety. For example, during the initial phase of the fire at 
Mine 84, the AMS operator appropriately responded to alert signals 
that, upon investigation, resulted in the discovery of a fire. The AMS 
operator in this instance utilized his knowledge of the AMS to help 
rapidly investigate and evacuate the miners. These actions helped to 
avoid miner injury and death. For these reasons, MSHA believes that the 
provision, as proposed, is sufficient. The final provision language 
remains unchanged from that in the proposed rule.
    MSHA expects that many operators will be able to fulfill these 
training and recordkeeping requirements in the course of meeting their 
responsibilities under 30 CFR Part 48. MSHA agrees with the commenter 
requesting that AMS operator training be system specific as well as 
consistent with Part 48 training. Mine operators with granted belt air 
petitions that address this training requirement fulfill this provision 
for AMS operator training and recordkeeping requirements under a 
modified 30 CFR Part 48 training plan. While this provision is not 
intended to require a separate, stand-alone training

[[Page 17515]]

program and recordkeeping system, operators could opt to administer the 
AMS operator training this way.
    Proposed paragraph (r) would have required 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), would have been installed in a 
different entry from the AMS. Commenters to this section that already 
use belt air disagreed with the need to separate the cables in the belt 
entry. They argued that operators with existing belt air petitions be 
grandfathered on this requirement for all areas of the mine where the 
two systems are installed in the same entry prior to the effective date 
of the rule. MSHA does not believe that grandfathering existing 
developed areas of mines that currently have both the voice 
communication line and the AMS cable in the belt entry would achieve 
the level of safety required by this final rule. Therefore, 
grandfathering of existing communication lines will not be allowed. 
However, MSHA recognizes that additional time may be required for some 
mines to comply with this provision. Therefore, this final rule has 
been changed from that proposed to allow for additional time for the 
implementation of this provision; the phrase, ``no later than August 2, 
2004.''
    One commenter argued that ``Under the proposed standard, the 
primary escapeway will need to be monitored at the mouth of a section 
and near the loading point. If the AMS system lines are in the belt 
entry and the communication lines are in the intake (primary 
escapeway), compliance cannot be achieved.'' MSHA agrees with the 
commenter and has modified the provision language to read, ``However, 
the two-way voice communication system may be installed in the entry 
where the intake sensors required by Sec. Sec.  75.350(b)(4) or 
75.350(d)(1) are installed.''
    Another commenter argued, ``Normally, an operator would want the 
AMS line in the belt entry and the additional communication line in the 
intake entry. Normally, the operator would also have phones at belt 
drives and transfers. This requirement would appear to require two 
separate systems unless the AMS sensors in the non-belt entries can be 
fed off the belt entry system and the phones in the belt entry can be 
fed off the communication line in the intake entry or vice versa, and 
that is not clear from the proposed rules.'' The commenter suggested 
that this requirement be deleted.
    In response to these comments, the provision clearly requires that 
the trunk lines for the AMS and communication systems be installed in 
separate entries. MSHA agrees with the commenter, however, that branch 
cables from these trunk lines can extend into the entry in which the 
other communication line is installed. However, with this clarification 
MSHA believes that deleting the provision would negatively affect miner 
safety.
    Another commenter wrote that installing communication lines in 
separate entries is not practical because trunk and branch lines of 
both the AMS and communication systems must be placed in both entries 
and therefore, this requirement is not reasonable for three-entry 
sections with the belt in one entry and the primary escapeway in the 
next entry. A commenter stated that this requirement is not included in 
existing petitions. One other commenter said, our ``mine has miles of 
communication lines in the same entry as the AMS system lines. There 
has never been an incident or indication that this may be a problem. 
Requiring the two lines be separated will only move one of the lines 
into an entry where the likelihood of being damaged is greater. 
Therefore we feel the proposed standard will complicate and endanger a 
system that is working well.''
    MSHA disagrees with the commenters that the branch lines for both 
the AMS and voice communication system should not be installed in 
separate entries. MSHA does not believe that placing both the voice 
communication line and the AMS cable in the same entry would achieve 
the level of safety required by this final rule, since voice 
communication problems have occurred due to damage to the phone line in 
the belt entry, as discussed in this section of the preamble. 
Therefore, installation of the branch lines for the AMS cables and the 
voice communication line must be in separate entries.
    Other commenters repeatedly stated that two forms of communication 
independent of the regular mine phone system are necessary on sections, 
longwalls, belts, and outby areas of the mine that do not include the 
AMS. Examples of independent forms of communication include a leaky 
feeder radio system or a personal evacuation device (PED) emergency 
communication system. They also suggested that phone directories 
listing each mine phone be posted at each phone, and the location of 
each underground phone should be mapped on the surface to inform 
surface personnel of their locations. In addition, the commenter stated 
that ``* * * the proposed rules do not address the fact that current 
mine communication systems do not reach all of the miners all of the 
time, as assumed in the proposed belt air standards. Thus there will 
always be miners who may not be contacted in case of an emergency 
created by the use of belt air to ventilate an active working mine.'' 
The commenters also argued that a communication device be located every 
1,000 feet, not every 2,000 feet, as proposed because a fire could grow 
to be out-of-control while the miner walks the extra 1,000 feet to a 
phone. In addition, one commenter asked if this proposed requirement 
was different than the requirements of existing Sec.  75.1600 which 
requires that whenever miners are underground, two-way communication 
must be made available to the miners.
    MSHA agrees that 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. This provision is 
consistent with existing petition requirements. Nearly all of the 
granted petitions approved since 1978 required two-way communications. 
In response to the commenter about requiring two independent forms of 
voice communication other than that required by Sec.  75.1600, the mine 
operator is responsible to provide equipment that is necessary for the 
safe operation of the mine. MSHA recognizes that it is not reasonable 
to expect that every underground miner has immediate access to a voice 
communication line. However, MSHA believes that the requirement to have 
voice communication available every 2,000 feet in the belt entry if the 
AMS system fails is sufficient to maintain miner safety. In response to 
the commenter's suggestion that a phone directory and map be provided 
at each phone underground, MSHA is requiring that the AMS operator have 
the ability to contact various individuals on the surface and 
underground in order to fulfill the responsibilities of the AMS 
operator. Part of this responsibility is the requirement to have two-
way voice communication from the surface to affected areas to notify 
personnel. Also, a directory would not apply if the mine has a paging 
system.
    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. Therefore, the language of this provision has been 
changed to read, ``When an AMS is used to comply with Sec.  75.350(b), 
a two-way voice communication system

[[Page 17516]]

required by Sec.  75.1600 must be installed in an entry that is 
separate from the entry in which the AMS is installed * * * However, 
the two-way voice communication system may be installed in the entry 
where the intake sensors required by Sec. Sec.  75.350(b)(4) or 
75.350(d)(1) are installed.''

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

    Final Sec.  75.352(a) requires that when the AMS operator receives 
either a malfunction, alert, or alarm signal at the designated surface 
location, the sensor(s) that are activated must be identified and the 
AMS operator must notify the appropriate personnel to take action. The 
AMS operator can be designated as one of the appropriate personnel who 
is responsible to carry out actions required by this section. This 
provision was modified from the proposed rule that stated, ``The 
designated AMS operator or other designated responsible person must 
promptly initiate * * * actions:'' This change was made to clarify our 
intent that the AMS operator must notify appropriate personnel when 
either a malfunction, alert, or alarm signal is received at the 
designated surface location.
    Some commenters asked for clarification on the actions of the 
responsible person under Sec.  75.1502 and the AMS operator under this 
section. AMS operators may be designated by the mine operator as 
``appropriate personnel'' (see Sec.  75.301 definition). Since 
appropriate personnel includes the ``responsible person'' for emergency 
mine evacuations under Sec. Sec.  75.1501 and 75.1502, the AMS operator 
can be the responsible person for emergency evacuations. However, the 
AMS operator must meet the criteria described in Sec.  75.1501 in order 
to be the responsible person. The mine operator is free to select any 
miner meeting the Sec.  75.1501 criteria to be the responsible person. 
The final provision was modified from that proposed.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(1) of Sec.  75.352 stated, ``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''. Final paragraph (b), that 
parallels proposed paragraph (a)(1) has been modified to clarify MSHA's 
intent to read, ``Upon notification of a malfunction, alert, or alarm 
signal, appropriate personnel must promptly initiate an investigation 
to determine the cause of the signal and take required actions set 
forth in Sec. Sec.  75.352(c), (d), or (e) below.'' These actions are 
required unless the cause of the malfunction, alert, or alarm signal is 
known not to be a hazard to the miners. If the cause of the 
malfunction, alert, or alarm signal is known not to represent a hazard, 
such as sensor calibration, or cutting and welding near a sensor, the 
final rule does not require notification of affected workers under 
Sec.  75.352(c).
    However, we still require a record of these events under Sec.  
75.351(o).
    Proposed Sec.  75.352(a)(2) stated that, ``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.'' This proposed section has 
been renumbered and restated in final Sec. Sec.  75.352(c), 
75.352(c)(1), and 75.352(c)(2) to clarify MSHA's intent that certain 
actions must be taken when the alarm signal is received at the 
designated surface location.
    Many commenters suggested alert signals should also be 
automatically transmitted to each affected working section and areas 
where mechanized mining equipment is being installed or removed. Other 
commenters suggested it is not necessary to report each alert to the 
sections, and that in mines where frequent nuisance and false alert and 
alarm signals occur, miners attach a diminished importance to the 
signals creating a ``cry-wolf'' syndrome, in which alert and alarm 
signals are discounted by miners as related to non-fire sources, such 
as diesel-powered equipment or welding fumes, and not to a real fire 
event. This new provision should reduce unnecessary notification of 
miners, thus increasing the over-all effectiveness of the AMS as an 
early-warning fire detection system.
    We agree that in many cases the activation of numerous alert 
signals may lead to complacency; however, we also agree that in some 
instances the early notification of working sections and setup or 
removal areas may be desirable. It has been reported that alert levels 
of CO at individual sensors are produced by diesel-powered equipment 
exhaust, cutting and welding operations, hot brakes on mobile 
equipment, and other non-fire conditions. Alert signals have also been 
caused by radio-frequency interference, and these occurrences are often 
of a limited duration. In an analysis of AMS system responses to fires, 
as well as large-scale fire testing by the U.S. Bureau of Mines, 
researchers found that fires may produce alert or higher levels of CO 
at consecutive sensors. When this occurs, automatic notification of 
affected areas is required by this final rule.
    For these reasons, while alert signals at individual sensors need 
not be reported to affected areas, we have included this new 
requirement so that, in the case of consecutive sensors in alert 
status, automatic notification of the affected areas is required. 
Actions required under this section are specified in Sec.  75.352(c). 
Although automatic notification of single alert signals on working 
sections and setup or removal areas is not required, the alert signals 
for individual sensors must still be investigated to determine the CO 
source, as required by 75.352(b).
    The operation of diesel-powered equipment in the belt air course or 
in adjacent air courses is a concern in mines using CO-based fire 
detection systems. Possibly, movement of the equipment in these air 
courses can cause alert or alarm activations at individual sensors as 
the equipment passes nearby. If there are cases where engines cause 
numerous alert and alarm signals due to the machine exhaust containing 
high levels of CO, we believe that the mine operator can perform 
maintenance on the diesel engines which is likely to be effective in 
reducing these levels. Proper maintenance of diesel-powered equipment 
is an important aspect of controlling diesel engine emissions as 
required by Sec.  75.1914--Maintenance of diesel-powered equipment.
    Additionally, the use of diesel discriminating sensors (DDS) has 
been shown to be effective in mines using diesel-powered equipment for 
reducing the frequency of alert signals.
    Final Sec.  75.352(c) requires that upon notification of an alarm 
signal or when alert signals at two consecutive sensors are indicated 
at the same time, the appropriate personnel must take various actions 
specified in Sec. Sec.  75.352(c)(1) and 75.352(c)(2). Under final 
Sec.  75.352(c)(1) the appropriate personnel must notify miners in 
affected working sections, in affected areas where mechanized mining 
equipment is being installed or removed, and at other locations 
specified in the approved mine emergency evacuation and firefighting 
program of instruction (Sec.  75.1502). Under final Sec.  75.352(c)(2), 
all personnel in the affected areas, unless assigned other duties under 
Sec.  75.1502 must be withdrawn promptly to a safe location identified 
in the mine emergency evacuation and firefighting program of 
instruction. This section has been reworded and renumbered from that 
proposed to clarify MSHA's intent that appropriate personnel have 
responsibilities to not only notify

[[Page 17517]]

affected workers upon the receipt of an alarm signal but also to notify 
affected workers upon receipt of alert signals at two consecutive 
sensors. This inclusion is based upon MSHA's analysis of the record and 
corresponds to the new requirement under Sec.  75.351(c)(7) that 
requires the AMS to automatically provide visual and audible alarm 
signals at the designated surface location, at all affected working 
sections, and at all affected areas where mechanized mining equipment 
is being installed or removed when the carbon monoxide level at any two 
consecutive sensors reaches and remains at the alert level specified in 
Sec.  75.351(i).
    Another commenter said that communication errors were reported by 
the AMS in JWR No. 5 Mine in September 2001 subsequent to the initial 
explosion. ``However, the Control Room operator simply did not deem 
these errors as significant and did not plan further action. Yet 
computer printouts from the AMS showed that the errors were 
acknowledged or silenced by the CO supervisor.'' This final rule 
requires that communication failure must be investigated, not ignored 
by the AMS operator. Section 75.352(a) requires that when the alert 
level is reached or a malfunction occurs, the sensor involved is 
identified, and appropriate personnel are notified immediately. Section 
75.352(b) requires that appropriate personnel promptly initiate an 
investigation to determine the cause of the alert, malfunction or alarm 
signal. Some commenters also suggested that an alert response should 
include communication and coordination of maintenance personnel with 
the AMS operator to limit the number of people who enter the mine until 
the incident is verified. In addition, commenters wanted the miners in 
affected sections to be withdrawn outby the alerting sensor. Other 
commenters opposed the sounding of alerts on working sections because 
it ``would propagate indifference to its sounding.'' MSHA agrees that 
communication errors should be investigated as malfunctions, as 
required by this section. However, MSHA disagrees with the comment that 
miners on working sections should be withdrawn outby a single alerting 
sensor unless an investigation confirms a problem or a problem is 
confirmed by other means such as a second sensor alert. 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. 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 these signals. 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 
Sec. Sec.  75.352(a) and (b) provide the early warning intended under 
an alert, malfunction, or alarm condition. Therefore, the requirement 
to withdraw workers to a safe location upon receipt of a single alert 
signal was not included in this final rule. This action is consistent 
with recently granted belt air petition requirements. In addition, MSHA 
has included a requirement under 75.351(c)(7) that mandates miners be 
withdrawn to a safe area if two consecutive sensors indicate an alert 
level as specified in Sec.  75.351(i) at the same time. This provides 
protection to miners without causing unnecessary withdrawals caused by 
malfunctions or other non-fire related alerts.
    When it is necessary to withdraw personnel under Sec.  
75.352(c)(2), the personnel must be withdrawn promptly to a safe 
location identified in the mine emergency evacuation and firefighting 
program of instruction. Based on the results of the investigation, a 
determination will be made by the Sec.  75.1501 responsible person on 
whether or not to initiate an emergency evacuation. Some commenters 
repeatedly suggested that an action that should be taken by the 
responsible person under this section is to limit the number of people 
entering the mine, as mandated by Sec.  75.1502, until the 
investigation is completed. MSHA has already stated that the 
investigation prompted by the alarm will determine the extent of the 
hazard to miners, and therefore, the necessary response under either 
Sec. Sec.  75.352 or 75.1502.
    A commenter suggested that miners working in the affected section 
be withdrawn outby the alerting sensor. MSHA has previously stated that 
we disagree with this suggestion because constantly notifying and 
withdrawing miners following every single alert signal, increases the 
occurrence of the ``cry-wolf'' syndrome. Investigation of the alert by 
the appropriate personnel is required and should reduce the occurrence 
of non-fire related signals that unnecessarily cause miner withdrawal. 
Therefore this provision should improve safety. The proposed language 
has been modified as discussed above.
    By not requiring the withdrawal of miners outby to a safe location 
we are reducing the occurrence of the ``cry-wolf'' syndrome. By 
requiring the withdrawal of miners outby to a safe location when alert 
signals are indicated at two consecutive sensors at the same time we 
are improving miner safety because if two sensors are in the alert 
mode, this is a more likely indication that a fire hazard exists. It is 
more likely that the AMS operator would receive alert signals on two 
consecutive sensors when a fire condition exists. This position is 
supported by an analysis of AMS system responses to fires, as well as 
large-scale fire testing by the U.S. Bureau of Mines, that indicates 
that fires may produce alert levels or higher of CO at consecutive 
sensors. Under this condition, automatic notification of affected areas 
is prudent.
    Many commenters noted that many of the granted petitions require 
notification of alarms and withdrawal of personnel outby the alarming 
sensor. MSHA agrees that this action is prudent. The language in the 
final provision has been modified to reflect withdrawal of affected 
miners to a safe location. Withdrawal of miners outby the alarming 
sensor may not always place the miners in a safe location and actually 
could move miners into smoke. Therefore, the last requirement of this 
provision has been modified, based on comments, from that proposed, 
eliminating the phrase ``outby the next functioning sensor upwind of 
the alarming sensor'' and replacing it with ``must be withdrawn 
promptly to a safe location identified in the mine emergency evacuation 
and firefighting program of instruction.'' MSHA agrees with the 
commenters that miners need to be evacuated to a safe place, as 
required by Sec.  75.352(c)(2), and not just outby the next functioning 
sensor upwind of the alarming sensor, since this location may not be as 
safe as some other withdrawal sites depending on the location of the 
fire. MSHA disagrees with a commenter who contended that for each alarm 
that the miners must be brought to the surface. Miners will be 
withdrawn to a safe location if either two consecutive alert signals or 
an alarm signal is received by the AMS operator. They will remain in 
the safe location until the investigation required by Sec.  75.352(b) 
is conducted and either results in an ``all clear'' to return to the 
affected areas of the mine or the miners are evacuated according to the 
requirements of Sec.  75.1502.
    Some commenters recommended the review of each mining operation's 
approved emergency evacuation and firefighting program of instruction 
to ascertain if they have been updated to include the new provisions of 
Sec.  75.1502--Mine emergency evacuation and firefighting program of 
instruction. In addition, these commenters are

[[Page 17518]]

uncomfortable with including new belt air requirements in these plans, 
until the Agency ascertains that these emergency plans have been 
updated to incorporate the new Sec.  75.1501 standard. The commenters 
are convinced that this action is necessary, since many of the existing 
plans are ``antiquated'' and unable to meet the additional requirements 
imposed upon them.
    The Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) on emergency evacuations was 
published on December 12, 2002. Mine operators were required by the ETS 
to submit for approval their emergency plans by January 13, 2003. MSHA 
published the final emergency evacuation rule on September 9, 2003. 
This rule was effective immediately. In light of this, MSHA believes 
that these mine emergency plans are not ``antiquated.'' The final 
emergency evacuations rule amended annual refresher training to allow 
MSHA to approve the mine operator's annual course of instruction 
regarding their emergency evacuation and fire fighting program of 
instruction (Sec.  48.8 as amended). If MSHA deems that this course is 
not consistent with current conditions found at the mine, then MSHA 
will require that modifications be made to the course, and consequently 
to the emergency evacuation plan, to reflect these conditions. Such 
changes might also include revisions to the training to include 
relevant final belt air provisions, such as the withdrawal of miners 
required by Sec.  75.352(c)(2).
    Proposed Sec.  75.352(c) stated, ``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 [existing] Sec.  75.323 must be taken.'' This proposed 
section has been renumbered and editorially revised to be final Sec.  
75.352(d). This provision addresses the actions required in case an 
alarm from a methane sensor in a return air split is activated. These 
actions apply also to methane sensors installed in accordance with 
Sec. Sec.  75.323(d)(1)(ii) and 75.362(f) that alarm. The specific 
actions required by the final rule include identification of the sensor 
that is causing the alarm, an investigation into the cause of the 
alarm, and actions required by existing Sec. Sec.  75.323(c) and Sec.  
75.323(d). The final provision reads, ``If there is an alert or alarm 
signal from a methane sensor installed in accordance with Sec. Sec.  
75.323(d)(1)(ii) and 75.362(f), an investigation must be initiated to 
determine the cause of the signal, and the actions required under Sec.  
75.323 must be taken.'' No specific comments were received on this 
paragraph; therefore, except for the renumbering and editorial changes, 
it remains as proposed.
    Like the proposed Sec.  75.352(d), final paragraph (e) of Sec.  
75.352 addresses the actions required if any fire detection component 
of the AMS malfunctions or is inoperative. The final rule requires the 
operator to take immediate action to return the system to proper 
operation. MSHA will allow continued operation of the belt only when 
certain safety precautions described in Sec.  75.352(e) are taken to 
assure miners' safety. This standard is consistent with recently 
granted petitions that permit the use of belt air to ventilate working 
places. This provision will maintain the safety in mines that currently 
have a granted belt air petition with such a requirement and will 
increase safety for miners that currently do not work under such a 
granted petition requirement if the mine operator chooses to use belt 
air.
    Some commenters testified that, if the AMS is inoperative for more 
than eight (8) hours, the mine operator must notify the district 
manager. MSHA does not believe that notification of the district 
manager is necessary since this final rule specifies equivalent actions 
that must be taken to protect miners. Hand-monitoring of the belt air 
course as required by this final rule is an equivalent method to AMS 
monitoring of the belt air course. Therefore, the paragraph remains 
unchanged from that of the proposed rule.
    Like the proposed Sec.  75.352(d)(1), final paragraph (e)(1) covers 
those instances when one sensor becomes inoperative. Under this 
condition, we 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. This action will maintain safety because hand-monitoring of the 
belt air course, as specified in this final rule, is an equivalent 
method to AMS monitoring of the belt air course. No comments were 
received on this paragraph. The final language remains as proposed, 
except that the proposed phrase ``During that time that'' has been 
replaced with the word ``While'' to make the provision read better.
    Like proposed Sec.  75.352(d)(2), final paragraph (e)(2) specifies 
the monitoring required if two or more adjacent AMS sensors become 
inoperative. Under the final 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. As an alternative 
under (e)(2), the operator could station a trained person near each 
inoperative sensor to continuously monitor for the presence of 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. This action 
will maintain safety because hand-monitoring of the belt air course, as 
required by this final rule, is an equivalent method to AMS monitoring 
of the belt air course. No comments were received on this provision. 
The final language remains as proposed except for the section being 
renumbered.
    Like proposed Sec.  75.352(d)(3), final paragraph (e)(3) specifies 
actions required if the complete AMS becomes inoperative. When 
determining what is complete system failure, we do not necessarily mean 
that every component of the system does not function. It is intended 
that this paragraph of the final 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, then the entire system should be considered inoperative. When 
the entire system becomes inoperative, paragraph (e)(3) requires the 
mine operator to take immediate action to have trained persons patrol 
and continuously monitor for CO or smoke so that the affected areas 
will be traveled each hour in their entirety. This action will maintain 
safety because hand-monitoring of the belt air course, as required by 
this final rule, is an equivalent method to AMS monitoring of the belt 
air course. No specific comments were received on this provision. 
However, MSHA is clarifying language in the final provision to change 
``belt entry(ies)'' to ``affected areas'' to include monitoring at 
sensors located in entries outside of the belt entry, such as at the 
sensors located in the primary escapeway under Sec.  75.351(f). This 
action will maintain safety by reducing the possibility that hand 
monitoring will not be conducted at these other sensors. Other than 
this change and the renumbering, the final language remains as 
proposed.

[[Page 17519]]

    When monitoring is conducted during times of system or sensor 
malfunction, the person doing the monitoring must be trained to make 
these tests. As in proposed Sec.  75.352(d)(4), final paragraph (e)(4) 
requires the person monitoring under this section must have voice 
communication available with the designated surface location. 
Communication capabilities must be available to trained persons 
patrolling 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. 
Some commenters suggested that the mine phones be positioned at a 
shorter distance than every 2,000 feet, such as every 1,000 feet, or 
that MSHA require the use of a leaky feeder system (i.e., walkie 
talkies with feeder antennas) in the track entries. The 2,000-foot 
spacing is consistent with granted petition requirements and will 
maintain the level of safety afforded miners.
    In addition, proposed (d)(5) stated that ``The trained persons 
monitoring under this section must report the AMS sensor(s) at 
intervals not to exceed one hour.'' This requirement has been included 
in final paragraph (e)(4), but modified to require that the trained 
person ``report contaminant levels to the AMS operator at intervals not 
to exceed 60 minutes.'' This requires that, even if alert or alarm 
levels are not exceeded, the trained persons must report to the AMS 
operator at intervals not to exceed one hour. This will verify to the 
AMS operator that there are no elevated levels of contaminants at the 
monitoring locations in the belt entry. These actions give the mine 
operator needed information on the atmosphere at the locations of the 
affected sensors and assure that appropriate action is taken as needed.
    Some commenters suggested that the trained person monitoring the 
AMS by hand should report to the AMS operator at least every 15 to 20 
minutes, not once per hour, as required by the provision. MSHA believes 
that it is not necessary for the trained person to report normal 
conditions more often than once per hour to the AMS operator. Miner 
safety is not affected by reporting normal conditions every 60 minutes 
instead of every 20 minutes. This ensures that the hand-held monitoring 
is occurring as required. It is important to note, that the AMS is not 
required to report levels of CO, smoke, and methane below established 
alert and alarm levels. As previously discussed, MSHA moved the 
requirement in the proposed rule (proposed paragraph (d)(5)) for 
trained persons to report to the AMS operator at intervals not to 
exceed one hour to final paragraph (e)(4). Therefore, the final 
provision (e)(4) is modified, as discussed above, from that proposed in 
(d)(4).
    Like proposed Sec.  75.352(d)(5), final paragraph (e)(5) requires 
the trained person to immediately report 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 (e)(7) of this section, unless the source 
of the contaminant is known not to represent a hazard. This provision 
was modified from the proposed requirement to emphasize the importance 
that the trained person immediately report any concentrations at or 
above the alert or alarm levels specified in Sec.  75.351(i), unless 
the source of the contaminant is known not to create a hazard to 
miners. The proposed provision stated, in part, ``* * * 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 (f)(8) of this section, unless the source 
of the contaminant is known not to represent a hazard.'' Whereas, the 
final provision states, ``The trained person(s) monitoring under this 
section must report immediately 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 levels 
specified in paragraph (e)(7) of this section, unless the source of the 
contaminant is known not to present a hazard.'' MSHA believes the 
modified language clarifies our intent that the trained person 
monitoring for fires immediately report any contaminant levels at or 
above the mine's alert or alarm level to the AMS operator.
    Like proposed Sec.  75.352(d)(6), final paragraph (e)(6) requires 
that detectors used to comply with this paragraph have a level of 
detectability comparable to those required for AMS sensors by Sec.  
75.351(l). That is, the hand-held detectors and the AMS sensors have 
the same resolution and detection range to detect CO at both the alert 
and alarm levels. The proposed rule used the term ``instruments.'' MSHA 
has changed this to ``detectors'' to clarify our intent because the 
term ``detector'' is more specific for portable gas-detection equipment 
used in underground mines. No comments were received on this section, 
therefore, other than this one word change and the renumbering of the 
provision, it remains as proposed.
    Hand-held methane and CO detectors are commercially available. Some 
AMS sensors do not have commercially available hand-held counterparts, 
such as smoke, so that an alternate instrument would be needed as 
required in both proposed Sec.  75.352(d)(7) and final paragraph 
75.352(e)(7) of this paragraph, which reads, ``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 mine ventilation plan.'' For example, 
smoke sensors which malfunction will require monitoring with an 
alternate detector, perhaps a hand-held CO detector that can detect CO 
at the established alert and alarm levels as required by Sec.  
75.351(i)(2). No comments were received on this paragraph. The final 
language remains as proposed, except for the renumbering of the 
provision.
    Like proposed Sec.  75.352(e), final Sec.  75.352(f) requires that 
if the 50-fpm minimum air velocity is not maintained in the belt entry 
as required in 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. Sec.  75.352(e)(3) through 75.352(e)(7) 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 velocity with 1,000-foot sensor spacing is 
considered a system failure because air currents will not carry a 
sufficient amount of contaminants to the sensors for detection. This is 
considered a system failure since the system would not be able to 
provide adequate warning. A commenter requested clarification, ``Does 
this section only apply to the requirement of a 50-foot per minute 
minimum or does it also apply to velocities below 50-foot per minute 
where sensors spacing has been reduced. Each scenario should be allowed 
as long as they comply with the requirements of hand monitoring.'' If 
the spacing of sensors is 1,000 feet and the velocity is less than 50 
fpm, hand monitoring is required. If the spacing of sensors is 350 
feet, hand monitoring is only required in the case of system or 
component failure. MSHA considers these provisions to be equivalent. 
Two minor editorial changes were made to the final language of the 
provision. The proposed rule stated ``Trained persons,'' while the 
final provisions states, ``A

[[Page 17520]]

trained person(s).'' The proposed rule included the phrase ``of this 
section'' which has been deleted from the final language. Other than 
these editorial changes and renumbering of the section, the language of 
the final paragraph remains unchanged from that proposed.

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 respirable 
dust and methane, and provide necessary levels of oxygen to the mine 
working environment.
    We are adding eight (8) requirements to the mine ventilation plan. 
These new paragraphs, Sec. Sec.  75.371(ii) through (pp), require 
certain information to be specified and approved. Under this final 
rule, the existing paragraphs (ii) through (nn) would be redesignated 
as (qq) through (xx).
    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. Section 75.351(j) does not change 
this requirement.
    Like the proposed rule, final paragraph (ii), in accordance with 
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 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. The mine operator is required to 
establish the DA in order to monitor the intake air for dust levels and 
to keep these levels within existing standards. This monitoring and 
control of dust levels ensures that miners' health is protected by 
keeping the dust levels within existing standards (Sec.  70.100). No 
comments were received on this provision. The final language remains as 
proposed, except the phrase ``in accordance with'' as been editorially 
added to refer to Sec.  75.350(b)(3).
    Final paragraph (jj), in accordance with Sec.  75.350(a)(2), 
requires that the locations where velocities exceed 500 feet per minute 
in the belt entry, and the maximum approved velocity for each location, 
be included in the mine ventilation plan. This is a new provision under 
Sec.  75.371 that corresponds to the inclusion of new Sec.  
75.350(a)(2). This requirement was added based on the comments received 
that are discussed in this preamble under the section-by-section 
discussion of Sec.  75.350(a)(2). This information is necessary for 
MSHA to evaluate the capability of fire detection system to ensure that 
the fire detection components are compatible with the air velocity and 
the mining conditions.
    Final paragraph (kk), in accordance with Sec.  75.350(b)(6), 
requires the location where air quantities are measured. This provision 
corresponds to the new provision of Sec.  75.350(b)(6). This 
requirement was added based on the comments received that are discussed 
in this preamble under the section-by-section discussion of Sec.  
75.350(b)(6).
    Final paragraph (ll), formerly (jj) of the proposed rule, requires 
that the locations and use of all point feeds be approved in the mine 
ventilation plan. The term ``use'' was added and the term 
``regulators'' was deleted to clarify MSHA's intent to clearly specify 
point feeding requirements in this final rule, as stated under 
Sec. Sec.  75.350(c) and (d).
    One commenter asked for clarification: ``[m]ust the point feed 
locations be site specific and be identified and changed for every 
section or can a general statement be made as to their location and 
then be shown on the mine map? A general statement can be made and a 
sketch shown for the approximate location * * * Requiring individual 
site specific locations will cause additional paper work and time for 
approval that is not necessary.'' This provision requires that a 
specific location be identified in the ventilation plan. However, if 
the mine operator consistently point feeds at the same location and in 
the same manner in each panel then a general statement may be 
acceptable for approval of multiple locations. For example, a mine 
operator may point feed consistently in each panel at a specified 
crosscut inby the mouth of each panel in a specific manner. In other 
instances, where point feeding is used infrequently then specific 
locations may need to be identified in the ventilation plan. 
Regardless, these locations must be approved by the district manager. 
The provision remains unchanged from that proposed, except for the 
inclusion of the word, ``use'' and the phrase ``in accordance with'' 
has been editorially added to refer to Sec.  75.350(d)(5).
    Final paragraph (mm), formerly 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 to be 
identified in the mine ventilation plan. Final 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 early-warning fire protection. In 
those cases, Sec.  75.351(e)(5) requires that these locations be 
specified and approved in the mine ventilation plan. A commenter was 
not in favor of this requirement to have additional sensors approved in 
the mine ventilation plan. MSHA believes that it is important to 
identify the sensors required by Sec.  75.351(e)(5) in order to 
adequately evaluate the effectiveness of the early-warning fire 
detection system. However, we do not intend that additional sensors 
installed by the mine operator that are not required by the district 
manager in Sec.  75.351(e)(5), need to be identified in the mine 
ventilation plan. Only in those cases when additional sensors are 
necessary would the mine ventilation plan contain this information. The 
language of the final provision remains unchanged from that proposed 
except the phrase ``in accordance with'' has been editorially added to 
refer to Sec.  75.350(e)(5).
    Final paragraph (nn), formerly proposed paragraph (ll), in 
accordance with Sec.  75.351(m), requires the length of time delays or 
other methods used to reduce the number of non-fire related alert and 
alarm signals from the AMS be stated in the ventilation plan. Other 
methods may include a sophisticated algorithm similar to that employed 
by the diesel-discriminating sensor, human intervention, controlling or 
limiting diesel-powered equipment operation. Section 75.351(m) requires 
that the length of the delays be specified and approved in the mine 
ventilation plan.
    Documentation must be submitted to the Agency in support of the 
need for a time delay. This documentation should include the frequency 
of alert and alarm signals, contaminant levels reached, the duration of 
signals, and the expected benefit of using the time delay. This section 
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 Sec.  75.351(m) the use 
of reasonable time delays and other computer techniques has reportedly 
been successful in reducing the number of non-fire alert and alarm 
signals. However, because these techniques should be used only when 
necessary (when non-fire alert and alarm signals 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. Time delays, when

[[Page 17521]]

used appropriately, increase safety by reducing the occurrence of alert 
and alarm signals caused by non-fire related events. This increases 
miner confidence in the AMS. No comments were received on this 
provision. The final language remains as proposed, except the phrase 
``in accordance with'' has been editorially added to refer to Sec.  
75.351(m).
    Final paragraph (oo), formerly proposed paragraph (mm), in 
accordance with Sec.  75.351(i)(2), requires that when reduced alert 
and alarm settings for CO sensors are required by the district manager, 
they be specified in the mine ventilation plan. The only change from 
the proposed language was the replacement of the word ``lower'' with 
``reduced'' to make our intention clear. These reduced alert and alarm 
levels that are incorporated into the mine ventilation plan allow for 
evaluation of the mine operator's proposed alert and alarm levels, thus 
maintaining miner safety. No comments were received on the specific 
language of this provision; it otherwise remains unchanged from that 
proposed, except the phrase ``in accordance with'' has been editorially 
added to refer to Sec.  75.351(i)(2).
    Final paragraph (pp), formerly proposed paragraph (nn), in 
accordance with Sec.  75.352(e)(7), requires that alternate detectors 
be approved in the mine ventilation plan if they can be used to monitor 
the belt entry in the case of an inoperative or malfunctioning AMS. For 
example, this provision would permit the use of a CO detector to 
monitor a belt entry equipped with smoke sensors. Such a CO detector 
could 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. 
Incorporating alternate detectors into the mine ventilation plan allows 
for evaluation of the mine operator's proposed use of such detectors, 
thus maintaining miner safety. No comments were received on the 
specific language of this provision. It remains unchanged from that 
proposed, except the phrase ``in accordance with'' has been editorially 
added to refer to Sec.  75.352(e)(7).

Section 75.372 Mine Ventilation Map

    Existing Sec.  75.372(b)(16) requires that the location of all 
required AMS sensors be shown on the mine ventilation map. Like the 
proposed rule, final paragraph Sec.  75.372(b)(16) requires that the 
type of sensor also be shown on the mine 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 
malfunction, alert, and alarm signals have information available that 
tells them both the type and location of these sensors. No comments 
were received on this provision. The final language remains as 
proposed, except we added ``subpart D'' to clarify which subpart of 
part 75 is affected by this change.

Section 75.380(g) Escapeway; Bituminous and Lignite Mines

    Like the proposed rule, final paragraph (g) of Sec.  75.380 
requires that 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) of this final rule, the 
primary escapeway must be separated from belt and trolley haulage 
entries for its entire length, to and including the first connecting 
crosscut out by 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 needed in 
the belt air course as permitted by Sec.  75.350(c) of this final rule. 
Exceptions to this 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) of this final 
rule. No comments were received on this provision. The final language 
remains as proposed.
    In the proposed rule, MSHA did not require the use of lifelines but 
solicited information from the public concerning the use and 
maintainability of lifelines. In general, a lifeline is generally a 
rope extending from a working section through an escapeway to the 
surface that miners could grasp and use as a guide to help escape the 
mine during low-visibility emergency conditions. The Advisory Committee 
recommended the installation and maintenance of lifelines in all 
underground coal mines, regardless of the use of belt air. The 
recommendation specified that lifelines had to clearly designate the 
route of escape. Discussion in the Advisory Committee's report 
suggested the use of directional cones that indicate the direction of 
travel to the surface to increase the effectiveness of lifelines.
    Numerous commenters suggested that lifelines should be required if 
belt air is used to ventilate working sections. Other commenters 
thought that lifelines should not be located in the primary escapeway 
because they would be subject to frequent damage from mobile equipment. 
Another commenter thought that this issue was best addressed through a 
different rulemaking.
    NIOSH submitted to the record a study that ranked factors that 
affected survival during coal mine fires. A combination of factors, 
including installing lifelines, moderately decreasing air leakage, and 
decreasing the fire growth rate significantly decreased the amount of 
time required to escape a fire. A conclusion of the NIOSH research is 
that lifelines with directional cones can improve escape through smoke.
    The Commonwealth of Kentucky's State Statute at 
Ky.Rev.Stat.Ann.Sec.  352.135 requires that ``lifeline cords, with 
attached reflective material at not to exceed twenty-five (25) foot 
intervals, from the last open crosscut to the surface; provided, that 
in case of a shaft mine, such lifeline cords shall extend from the last 
open crosscut to the bottom of the designated escape shaft. Such 
lifeline cord shall be of durable construction sufficient to allow 
miners to see and to use effectively to guide themselves out of the 
mine in the event of an emergency.''
    West Virginia's State Statute at W.Va. Code Sec.  22A-2-60(b) 
requires that ``* * * lifeline cords, with reflective material at 
twenty-five foot intervals, * * * '' be installed `` * * * from the 
last open crosscut to the surface along a designated escapeway 
ventilated by return air: Provided, that in the case of a shaft mine 
such lifeline cords shall extend from the last open crosscut to the 
bottom of the designated escape shaft. Such lifeline cord shall be of 
durable construction sufficient to allow miners to see and to use 
effectively to guide themselves out of the mine in the event of an 
emergency.''
    The Agency decided that on balance, directional lifelines could be 
practical as a safety enhancement in return entries when used as 
alternate escapeways. Based on the rulemaking record, granted petition 
requirements, an Advisory Committee recommendation, and the 
requirements of these state laws, MSHA developed provisions for the use 
of directional lifelines. The new provisions under Sec.  75.380(n) 
require the use of directional lifelines in return entries when used as 
alternate escapeways when belt air is used to ventilate working 
sections or setup or removal areas, in accordance with Sec.  75.350(b). 
The term ``directional lifelines'' refers to lifelines that contain 
directional cones or similar devices that face in the direction of 
escape to the surface.
    The first provision, Sec.  75.380(n)(1), requires that lifelines be 
installed in

[[Page 17522]]

alternate escapeways ventilated with return air from the working 
sections or areas where mechanized mining equipment is being installed 
or removed: continuous to the surface escape drift opening; or 
continuous to the escape shaft or slope facilities to the surface; or 
continuous to where this escapeway enters into intake air. This 
provision is based on language that describes escapeways in existing 
Sec.  75.380(b)(1). However, the lifelines do not need to extend into 
an intake air course when the alternate escapeway passes into intake 
air from return air because the lifelines are required only in return 
entries designated as an alternate escapeway.
    The second provision, Sec.  75.380(n)(2) requires that lifelines be 
made of a durable material so that they are resistant to mechanical 
damage. This parallels the states' requirements as well as being 
consistent with testimony in the rulemaking record. Lifelines must be 
constructed of durable materials in order for them to survive normal 
mining conditions (e.g., atmospheric conditions such as humidity) so 
that they are available in case miners need to use them to evacuate the 
mine.
    The third provision, Sec.  75.380(n)(3), is that the lifelines must 
be marked with a reflective material every 25 feet, so that miners can 
locate the lifeline in low-visibility conditions using their cap lamps. 
This requirement is also consistent with states' laws and with 
testimony in the rulemaking record.
    The fourth provision, Sec.  75.380(n)(4), is that lifelines be 
positioned in such a manner so that miners can use them effectively to 
escape. For example, the proper positioning of the lifeline as 
determined by the mining conditions increases the ability of miners to 
effectively use lifelines during emergency situations. This provision 
is also consistent with states' laws.
    The fifth provision, Sec.  75.380(n)(5), is that lifelines contain 
directional indicators, signifying the route of escape, placed at 
intervals not to exceed 100 feet. Existing Sec.  75.380(d)(2) requires 
that ``each escapeway shall be clearly marked to show the route and 
direction of travel to the surface.'' During escape when visibility is 
low, the directional indicators, such as cones, will enhance the 
ability of miners to escape by quickly indicating the proper direction 
of travel. Therefore, we are requiring these directional indicators. 
Currently, some mines place prefabricated directional lifelines in 
escapeways, using cones to show the direction of escape. NIOSH 
publications discuss the design of a particular lifeline construction 
(75-foot cone spacing) and NIOSH recommends installation of double-
cones at obstructions to alert miners of personnel doors, overcasts, 
belt crossings, etc. However, NIOSH did not recommend an interval for 
directional cone spacing. MSHA experience in training miners at the 
Mine Simulation Laboratory in Beaver, West Virginia, indicates that the 
directional cone spacing interval needs to be variable, due to 
variation in conditions found in return entries, including overcasts 
and undercasts and turns. MSHA's intent is that the interval spacing 
will never exceed 100 feet, but may be shorter depending upon entry 
conditions, as determined by the mine operator as mine conditions 
warrant.

III. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule contains information collection requirements in 
various provisions. These paperwork requirements are under OMB Control 
Number 1219-0138. Our paperwork submission summarized below is 
explained in detail in the Regulatory Economic Analysis (REA) that 
accompanies the rule. The REA includes the estimated costs and 
assumptions for the paperwork requirements related to this final rule. 
A copy of the REA is available on our Web site at http://www.msha.gov/
regsinfo.htm and can also be obtained in hardcopy from MSHA. These 
paperwork requirements have been submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget for review under 44 U.S.C. Sec.  3504(h) of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, as amended. Respondents are not required to 
respond to any collection of information unless it displays a current 
valid OMB control number. This control number, 1219-0138, combines 
paperwork requirements from the following OMB control number packages: 
1219-0065, 1219-0067, 1219-0073, and 1219-0088.
    MSHA estimates that the final rule would create 22,042 burden hours 
for the first year, 22,100 burden hours for the second year, and 22,522 
burden hours for the third year, for a total of 66,665 burden hours for 
Years 1 through 3 combined. This is equivalent to an annualized value 
of 22,465 hours per year and related annualized costs of $1,215,996 per 
year. These costs are more than offset by the $1.847 million in gross 
cost savings from this final rule.
    On a per-mine basis, MSHA estimates the same paperwork burdens for 
both new and existing mines that use belt air. 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. MSHA also estimates paperwork costs 
for all mines that point feed. These estimates include the burden hours 
and costs for mines that point feed, but do not use belt air at the 
working places. The burden hours and cost for point-feeding-only mines 
are less than 0.1% of the total burden hours and costs. They are 
separately calculated because they affect a different set of mines.
    The paperwork burden is summarized by total annualized burden hours 
by provision (Table 1) and by total annualized burden costs by 
provision (Table 2).
    Numerous provisions require action to modify the mine ventilation 
plan. Paragraph 75.351(j) requires modification of the mine ventilation 
plan to include ambient CO levels and the means used to determine them. 
Paragraph 75.351(m) requires that the mine ventilation plan be modified 
to show the use and length of time-delays of any non-fire related CO 
sensor signals. Paragraphs 75.371(mm), 75.371(nn), and 75.371(oo) 
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 final rule will 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.
    Paragraph 75.351(n)(1) requires 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. Paragraphs 75.351(n)(2) and 75.351(n)(3) require that a log 
be kept of every seven-day alarm test and every 31-day CO, smoke, or 
methane sensor calibration, respectively.
    Paragraph 75.351(o)(1)(i) requires that a record be made if the AMS 
emits an alert or alarm signal. The record must include the date, time, 
location and type

[[Page 17523]]

of sensor, and the reason for its activation. Paragraph (o)(1)(ii) 
requires 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 are 
useful to the miner, the mine operator, and the Agency in determining 
areas of recurring problems. This aids in ensuring proper operation of 
AMS.
    Paragraph (o)(1)(iii) requires that the persons doing the weekly 
test of alert and alarm signals, the monthly calibration, and 
maintenance of the system make a record of these tests, calibrations, 
and maintenance. Paragraph 75.351(o)(3) requires that all records 
concerning the AMS be kept in a book or electronically in a computer 
system, that is secure and not susceptible to alteration. Paragraph 
75.351(p) requires the mine operator keep these records for at least 
one year at a surface location and to make them available for 
inspection by miners and authorized representatives of the Secretary.
    Paragraph 75.351(q) requires that AMS operators receive training 
annually and that a record of this training be kept. The record of 
training includes the content of training, the name of the person 
conducting the training, and the date the training was conducted. The 
record needs to be maintained at the mine site by the mine operator for 
at least one year.
    Paragraphs 75.352(a), 75.352(b), and 75.352(c) require the 
designated AMS operator or other designated responsible person to take 
actions promptly when malfunction, alert, or alarm signals are 
received. These requirements are parallel to those of Sec.  75.351(o).

                                                       Table 1.--Total Burden Hours of Final 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.              (8.48)         (131.73)         (144.96)          (12.26)         (297.43)
 Sec.   44.9, 44.10 and 44.11.......................
Sec.   75.351(j)....................................            2.87            37.00            35.64             3.14            78.65
Sec.   75.351(j), implied impact on existing Sec.               0.09             1.16             1.11             0.10             2.46
 75.371(hh).........................................
Sec.   75.351(m)....................................            0.07             4.65            16.71             1.47            22.90
Sec.   75.351(n)(1), implied impact on existing Sec.            0.47             4.03            10.80             2.25            17.55
   75.363(b)........................................
Sec.   75.351(n)(2).................................           46.04           784.94         2,105.58           293.00         3,229.57
Sec.   75.351(n)(3).................................           56.66         1,932.16        10,365.95         1,803.11        14,157.88
Sec.  Sec.   75.351(o)(1)(i) & (ii).................            1.34            67.45           778.89           121.94           969.61
Sec.   75.351(o)(1)(iii)............................            6.35           174.70           824.96           139.59         1,145.60
Sec.   75.351(q)....................................           32.76           400.02           931.32           119.74         1,483.83
Sec.  Sec.   75.352(a),(b) & (c)....................           13.63           271.21         1,158.29           159.31         1,602.44
Sec.   75.371(kk)...................................            0.77             7.34            11.23             1.14            20.47
Sec.   75.371(ll)...................................            2.44            13.88            12.52             1.23            30.08
Sec.   75.371(nn)...................................            0.00             0.15             0.52             0.05             0.72
Sec.   75.371(oo)...................................            0.01             0.12             0.11             0.01             0.25
Sec.   75.371(pp)...................................            0.02             0.23             0.22             0.02             0.49
                                                     ------------------
    Total...........................................          155.04         3,567.30        16,108.88         2,633.83        22,465.06
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Source: Chapter VII of the Regulatory Economic Analysis.


                                                       Table 2.--Total Burden Costs of Final 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.              ($500)         ($7,767)         ($8,547)           ($723)        ($17,537)
 Sec.   44.9, 44.10, and 44.11......................
Sec.   75.351(j)....................................            $169           $2,181           $2,101             $185           $4,637
Sec.   75.351(j), implied impact on existing Sec.                  5               68               66                6              145
 75.371(hh).........................................
Sec.   75.351(m)....................................               4              274              985               87            1,350
Sec.   75.351(n)(1), implied impact on existing Sec.              14              115              309               65              503
   75.363(b)........................................
Sec.   75.351(n)(2).................................           2,714           46,281          124,148           17,276          190,420
Sec.   75.351(n)(3).................................           3,341          113,923          611,190          106,313          834,767
Sec.  Sec.   75.351(o)(1)(i) & (ii).................              38            1,933           22,324            3,495           27,791
Sec.   75.351(o)(1)(iii)............................             374           10,301           48,641            8,230           67,546
Sec.   75.351(q)....................................           1,502           16,268           35,281            4,328           57,379
Sec.  Sec.   75.352(a), (b) & (c)...................             391            7,773           33,198            4,566           45,928
Sec.   75.371(kk)...................................              45              433              662               67            1,207
Sec.   75.371(ll)...................................             144              818              738               73            1,774
Sec.   75.371(nn)...................................               0                9               31                3               42
Sec.   75.371(oo)...................................               1                7                7                1               14

[[Page 17524]]

 
Sec.   75.371(pp)...................................               1               14               13                1               29
                                                     ------------------
    Total...........................................           8,244          192,631          871,148          143,973        1,215,996
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Source: Chapter VII of the Regulatory Economic Analysis.

IV. 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 
(67 FR 9385) requires that regulatory agencies assess both the costs 
and benefits of regulations. MSHA has determined that this final rule 
will 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, this final rule 
has been determined to be 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 Regulatory Economic Analysis (REA) in which 
the economic impact of the rule is estimated. The REA is available from 
MSHA at http://www.msha.gov/REGSINFO.HTM and is summarized as follows.

A. Population-at-Risk

    MSHA estimates that this rulemaking will initially affect 
approximately 14,117 miners at 88 underground coal mines which choose 
to use belt air at the working places during the first year of the 
final rule. MSHA also estimates that this rulemaking will additionally 
affect approximately 5,535 miners at 71 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 final rule. Accordingly, 
MSHA estimates that this rulemaking will affect a total of 
approximately 19,652 miners at 159 underground coal mines during the 
first year of the final rule.

B. Benefits

    MSHA has qualitatively determined that the final 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 final rule will 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 final 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, smoke, or methane 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 extinguishing 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 final 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 AMSs in additional mines will 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 gases escaping to the surface from a mine fire. In addition, 
there can be long-term adverse economic impacts on a community when a 
mine fire shuts down a coal mine.

C. Compliance Costs

    The final 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 Escapeway; bituminous and lignite mines.
    The main substantive changes of the final 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 final 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 final rule.
    The final rule will provide a net yearly cost savings of $707,804 
to underground coal mine operators. Included are yearly gross cost 
savings of

[[Page 17525]]

$1,847,181 and yearly gross compliance costs of $1,139,377 for mines 
affected by the final rule. The yearly gross costs are composed of 
$1,138,642 for mines using belt air and $735 for mines that point feed 
the belt air without using the belt air at the working places.

D. Safety Benefits and Other Economic Impacts

    The final 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 final 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 final 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 final 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 final 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 final rule are both 
technologically and economically feasible.
    This final 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 Emergency Evacuation and Firefighting Program of Instruction 
(Sec.  75.1502). Other provisions of the final rule will reduce 
petition requirements.
    The final 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. In total, the cost savings from the 
final rule are $708,000 per year.
    The final rule provides for a safe mining environment and 
facilitates the use of technologically advanced fire-detection systems. 
In addition, there will 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 (RFA) and Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)

    The 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 final determination, MSHA has analyzed the impact of the final 
rule and determined that it 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 final rule, including the preamble and 
regulatory flexibility certification statement, to all underground coal 
mine operators and miners' representatives. The final rule will also be 
placed on MSHA's Internet Homepage at http://www.msha.gov, under 
Statutory and Regulatory Information.
    The RFA, as amended, at 5 U.S.C. 605(b) also requires MSHA to 
include in the final rule a factual basis for this determination. This 
information must be published in the Federal Register.
1. 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 
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 final rule results 
in net cost savings, there will not be any burden placed on small mine 
operators. Accordingly, MSHA certifies that there is no significant 
impact on a substantial number of small coal mining entities that are 
affected by this rule.

V. 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 final 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 final rule in accordance with Executive 
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255) regarding federalism, and has determined that 
it does not have ``federalism implications.'' The final rule will 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 final rule 
on children. The Agency has determined that the final rule will have no 
adverse 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 final 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 final rule is not subject to Executive Order 12630, 53 FR 
8859, because it does not involve implementation of a policy with 
takings implications.

[[Page 17526]]

F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    The Agency has reviewed Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729) and 
determined that this final rule will not unduly burden the Federal 
court system. The final rule is 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 final rule for its energy impacts. MSHA has determined 
that this final rule will 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 final 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 REA, MSHA has 
determined that the final rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

VI. Petitions for Modification

    On the effective date of the final rule, all existing granted 
petitions for modification for belt air used to ventilate working 
places and/or areas where mining equipment is being installed or 
removed under Sec.  75.350 and former Sec.  75.326 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. All existing granted petitions for modification for 
two-entry mines will remain in effect and will not be superseded by 
this rule. Future two-entry mines must continue to file petitions to 
use belt air, since Sec.  75.350(a) prohibits placing the conveyor belt 
in the return air course.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 75

    Mandatory safety standards, Mine safety and health, Underground 
coal mines, Ventilation.

    Dated: March 22, 2004.
Dave D. Lauriski,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health.

0
Chapter I of title 30, part 75 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

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

0
1. The authority citation for part 75 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 30 U.S.C 811.


0
2. Amend Sec.  75.301 by adding the following definitions:


Sec.  75.301  Definitions.

* * * * *
    AMS operator. The person(s), designated by the mine operator, who 
is located on the surface of the mine and monitors the malfunction, 
alert, and alarm signals of the AMS and notifies appropriate personnel 
of these signals.
    Appropriate personnel. The person or persons designated by the 
operator to perform specific tasks in response to AMS signals. 
Appropriate personnel include the responsible person(s) required by 
Sec.  75.1501 when an emergency evacuation is necessary.
    Atmospheric Monitoring System (AMS). A network consisting of 
hardware and software meeting the requirements of Sec. Sec.  75.351 and 
75.1103-2 and capable of: measuring atmospheric parameters; 
transmitting the measurements to a designated surface location; 
providing alert and alarm signals; processing and cataloging 
atmospheric data; and, providing reports. Early-warning fire detection 
systems using newer technology that provides equal or greater 
protection, as determined by the Secretary, will be considered 
atmospheric monitoring systems 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.
    Carbon monoxide ambient level. The average concentration in parts 
per million (ppm) of carbon monoxide detected in an air course 
containing carbon monoxide sensors. This average concentration is 
representative of the composition of the mine atmosphere over a period 
of mining activity during non-fire conditions. Separate ambient levels 
may be established for different areas of the mine.
* * * * *
    Point feeding. The process of providing additional intake air to 
the belt air course from another intake air course through a regulator.
* * * * *

0
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.
    (1) 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.
    (2) The maximum air velocity in the belt entry must be no greater 
than 500 feet per minute, unless otherwise approved in the mine 
ventilation plan.
    (3) Air velocities must be compatible with all fire detection 
systems and fire suppression systems used in the belt entry.
    (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 additional requirements are met:
    (1) The belt entry must be equipped with an AMS that is installed, 
operated, examined, and maintained as specified in Sec.  75.351.
    (2) All miners must be trained annually in the basic operating 
principles of the AMS, including the actions required in the event of 
activation of any AMS alert or alarm signal. This training must be 
conducted prior to working underground in a mine that uses belt air to 
ventilate working sections or areas where mechanized mining equipment 
is installed or removed. It must 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, an 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

[[Page 17527]]

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 area of the mine with a belt air course must be developed 
with three or more entries.
    (6) In areas of the mine developed after the effective date of this 
rule, unless approved by the district manager, no more than 50% of the 
total intake air, delivered to the working section or to areas where 
mechanized mining equipment is being installed or removed, can be 
supplied from the belt air course. The locations for measuring these 
air quantities must be approved in the mine ventilation plan.
    (7) Lifelines that meet the requirements of Sec.  75.380(n) must be 
provided if return entries are used as alternate escapeways.
    (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.
    (d) If the air through the point-feed regulator 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 the intake air course without requiring a person to 
enter the crosscut where the point-feed regulator is located. The 
point-feed regulator must also be provided with a means to close the 
regulator from a location in the belt air course immediately upwind of 
the crosscut containing 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(s) and use of a point-feed regulator(s) must be 
approved in the mine ventilation plan and shown on the mine ventilation 
map; and
    (6) An AMS must be installed, operated, examined, and maintained as 
specified in Sec.  75.351.

0
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 
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(d), 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 audible and visual 
signals from the AMS must be seen or heard and the AMS operator can 
promptly respond to these signals.
    (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(d), or 75.362(f), the following 
requirements apply:
    (1) The mine operator must designate a surface location at the mine 
where signals from the AMS will be received and two-way voice 
communication is maintained with each working section, with areas where 
mechanized mining equipment is being installed or removed, and with 
other areas designated in the approved emergency evacuation and 
firefighting program of instruction (Sec.  75.1502).
    (2) The mine operator must designate an AMS operator to monitor and 
promptly respond to all AMS signals.
    (3) A map or schematic must be provided at the designated surface 
location that shows the locations and type of AMS sensor at each 
location, and the intended air flow direction at these locations. This 
map or schematic must be updated within 24 hours of any change in this 
information.
    (4) The names of the designated AMS operators and other appropriate 
personnel, including the designated person responsible for initiating 
an emergency mine evacuation under Sec.  75.1501, 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(d), or 75.362(f) must:
    (1) Automatically provide visual and audible signals at the 
designated surface location for any interruption of circuit continuity 
and any electrical malfunction of the system. These signals must be of 
sufficient magnitude to be seen or heard by the AMS operator.
    (2) Automatically provide visual and audible signals at the 
designated surface location when the carbon monoxide concentration or 
methane concentration at any sensor reaches the alert level as 
specified in Sec.  75.351(i). These signals must be of sufficient 
magnitude to be seen or heard by the AMS operator.
    (3) Automatically provide visual and audible signals at the 
designated surface location distinguishable from alert signals when the 
carbon monoxide, smoke, or methane concentration at any sensor reaches 
the alarm level as specified in Sec.  75.351(i). These signals must be 
of sufficient magnitude to be seen or heard by the AMS operator.
    (4) Automatically provide visual and audible signals at all 
affected working sections and at all affected areas where mechanized 
mining equipment is being installed or removed when the carbon 
monoxide, smoke, or methane concentration at any sensor reaches the 
alarm level as specified in Sec.  75.351(i). These signals must be of 
sufficient magnitude to be seen or heard by miners working at these 
locations. Methane signals must be distinguishable from other signals.
    (5) Automatically provide visual and audible signals at other 
locations as specified in Mine Emergency Evacuation and Firefighting 
Program of Instruction (Sec.  75.1502) when the carbon monoxide, smoke, 
or methane concentration at any sensor reaches the alarm level as 
specified in Sec.  75.351(i). These signals must be seen or heard by 
miners working at these locations. Methane alarms must be 
distinguishable from other signals.
    (6) Identify at the designated surface location the operational 
status of all sensors.
    (7) Automatically provide visual and audible alarm signals at the 
designated surface location, at all affected working sections, and at 
all affected areas where mechanized mining equipment is being installed 
or removed when the carbon monoxide level at any two consecutive 
sensors alert at the same time. These signals must be seen or heard by 
the AMS operator and miners working at these locations.
    (d) Location and installation of AMS sensors. (1) All AMS sensors, 
as specified in Sec. Sec.  75.351(e) through 75.351(h), must be located 
such that measurements are representative of the mine atmosphere in 
these locations.
    (2) Carbon monoxide or smoke sensors must be installed near the 
center in the upper third of the entry, in a location that does not 
expose personnel working on the system to unsafe conditions. Sensors 
must not be located in abnormally high areas or in other

[[Page 17528]]

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 at the following locations:
    (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. 
All sensors must be installed at the 1,000-foot spacing no later than 
August 2, 2004.
    (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 for a single transfer point 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 mine ventilation plan.
    (f) Locations of sensors--the primary escapeway. When 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 areas where mechanized mining equipment 
is being installed or removed. In addition, another sensor must be 
located within 500 feet inby the beginning of the panel. The point-feed 
sensor required by Sec.  75.350(d)(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 air split between the last working place, 
longwall or shortwall face ventilated by that air split, 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 air split or immediately upwind of the location 
where an air split 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 paragraphs must initiate alert and alarm 
signals at the specified levels, as indicated:
    (1) For Sec.  75.323(d)(1)(ii) alarm at 1.5% methane.
    (2) For Sec. Sec.  75.340(a)(1)(ii), 75.340(a)(2)(ii), 75.350(b), 
and 75.350(d), 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(nn).
    (3) For Sec.  75.362(f), alert at 1.0% methane and alarm at 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(d).
    (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(d), 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 alert and alarm sensor 
signals. These time delays are limited to no more than three minutes. 
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.
    (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. Sec.  
75.350(b), and 75.350(d), 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(d) 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(d) 
must be calibrated in accordance with the manufacturer's calibration 
specifications. Calibration must be done 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(d) 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.

[[Page 17529]]

    (iv) If the alert or alarm signals will be activated during 
calibration of sensors, the AMS operator must be notified prior to and 
upon completion of calibration. The AMS operator must notify miners on 
affected working sections, areas where mechanized mining equipment is 
being installed or removed, or other areas designated in the approved 
emergency evacuation and firefighting program of instruction (Sec.  
75.1502) when calibration will activate alarms and when calibration is 
completed.
    (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(d), or 75.362(f), individuals 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 tests of alert and alarm signals; 
calibrations; and maintenance of the AMS must be made by the person(s) 
performing these actions.
    (2) The person entering the record must include their name, date, 
and signature in the record.
    (3) The records required by this section must be kept either in a 
secure book that is not susceptible to alteration, or 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 required by Sec.  
75.1600 must be installed in an entry that is separate from the entry 
in which the AMS is installed no later than August 2, 2004. The two-way 
voice communication system may be installed in the entry where the 
intake sensors required by Sec. Sec.  75.350(b)(4) or 75.350(d)(1) are 
installed.

0
5. Revise Sec.  75.352 to read as follows:


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

    (a) When a malfunction, alert, or alarm signal is received at the 
designated surface location, the sensor(s) that are activated must be 
identified and the AMS operator must promptly notify appropriate 
personnel.
    (b) Upon notification of a malfunction, alert, or alarm signal, 
appropriate personnel must promptly initiate an investigation to 
determine the cause of the signal and take the required actions set 
forth in paragraphs (c), (d), or (e) of this section.
    (c) If any sensor installed in accordance with Sec. Sec.  
75.340(a)(1)(ii), 75.340(a)(2)(ii), 75.350(b), or 75.350(d) indicates 
an alarm or if any two consecutive sensors indicate alert at the same 
time, the following procedures must be followed unless the cause of the 
signal(s) is known not to be a hazard to miners:
    (1) Appropriate personnel must notify miners in affected working 
sections, in affected areas where mechanized mining equipment is being 
installed or removed, and at other locations specified in the Sec.  
75.1502 approved mine emergency evacuation and firefighting program of 
instruction; and
    (2) All personnel in the affected areas, unless assigned other 
duties under Sec.  75.1502, must be withdrawn promptly to a safe 
location identified in the mine emergency evacuation and firefighting 
program of instruction.
    (d) If there is an alert or alarm signal from a methane sensor 
installed in accordance with Sec. Sec.  75.323(d)(1)(ii) and 75.362(f), 
an investigation must be initiated to determine the cause of the 
signal, and the actions required under Sec.  75.323 must be taken.
    (e) If any fire detection components of the AMS malfunction or are 
inoperative, immediate action must be taken to return the system to 
proper operation. While the AMS component repairs are being made, 
operation of the belt may continue if the following conditions are met:
    (1) If one AMS sensor malfunctions or 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 malfunction or become 
inoperative, a trained person(s) must patrol and continuously monitor 
for carbon monoxide or smoke so that the affected areas will be 
traveled each hour in their entirety, or a trained person must be 
stationed to monitor at each inoperative sensor.
    (3) If the complete AMS malfunctions or becomes inoperative, 
trained persons must patrol and continuously monitor for carbon 
monoxide or smoke so that the affected areas will be traveled each hour 
in their entirety.
    (4) The trained person(s) monitoring under this section must, at a 
minimum, have two-way voice communication capabilities with the AMS 
operator at intervals not to exceed 2,000 feet and report contaminant 
levels to the AMS operator at intervals not to exceed 60 minutes.
    (5) The trained person(s) monitoring under this section must report 
immediately 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 levels specified in 
paragraph (e)(7) of this section, unless the source of the contaminant 
is known not to present a hazard.
    (6) Detectors 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 in the approved mine 
ventilation plan.
    (f) If the 50-foot per minute minimum air velocity is not 
maintained when required under Sec.  75.351(e)(3), immediate action 
must be taken to return the ventilation system to proper operation. 
While the ventilation system is being corrected, operation of the belt 
may continue only while a trained person(s) patrols and continuously 
monitors for carbon monoxide or smoke as set forth in Sec. Sec.  
75.352(e)(3) through (7), so that the affected areas will be traveled 
each hour in their entirety.

0
6. Redesignate Sec.  75.371 paragraphs (ii) through (pp) to be 
paragraphs (qq) through (xx) and add new paragraphs (ii) through (pp) 
to read as follows:

[[Page 17530]]

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, in accordance with Sec.  75.350(b)(3).
    (jj) The locations where velocities in the belt entry exceed limits 
set forth in Sec.  75.350(a)(2), and the maximum approved velocity for 
each location.
    (kk) The locations where air quantities are measured as set forth 
in Sec.  75.350(b)(6).
    (ll) The locations and use of point-feed regulators, in accordance 
with Sec. Sec.  75.350(c) and 75.350(d)(5).
    (mm) The location of any additional carbon monoxide or smoke sensor 
installed in the belt air course, in accordance with Sec.  
75.351(e)(5).
    (nn) The length of the time delay or any other method used to 
reduce the number of non-fire related alert and alarm signals from 
carbon monoxide sensors, in accordance with Sec.  75.351(m).
    (oo) The reduced alert and alarm settings for carbon monoxide 
sensors, in accordance with Sec.  75.351(i)(2).
    (pp) The alternate detector and the alert and alarm levels 
associated with the detector, in accordance with Sec.  75.352(e)(7).
* * * * *

0
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 subpart 
D of this part.
* * * * *

0
8. Amend Sec.  75.380, by revising paragraph (g) and adding paragraph 
(n) 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 mine ventilation plan and does not pose a 
hazard to miners.
* * * * *
    (n) Alternate escapeways that are ventilated with return air from 
working sections or areas where mechanized mining equipment is being 
installed or removed that are ventilated with belt air in accordance 
with Sec.  75.350(b) must be provided with a directional lifeline that 
must be:
    (1) Installed from the working sections or areas where mechanized 
mining equipment is being installed or removed continuous to the 
surface escape drift opening or continuous to the escape shaft or slope 
facilities to the surface or to where this escapeway enters into intake 
air.
    (2) Made of durable material.
    (3) Marked with a reflective material every 25 feet.
    (4) Located in such a manner for miners to use effectively to 
escape.
    (5) Have directional indicators, signifying the route of escape, 
placed at intervals not exceeding 100 feet.

[FR Doc. 04-6768 Filed 4-1-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-43-P