[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 116 (Monday, June 16, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34140-34173]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-13565]



[[Page 34139]]

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

Part IV





Department of Labor





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



Mine Safety and Health Administration



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



30 CFR Parts 7 and 75



Refuge Alternatives for Underground Coal Mines; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 116 / Monday, June 16, 2008 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 34140]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mine Safety and Health Administration

30 CFR Parts 7 and 75

RIN 1219-AB58


Refuge Alternatives for Underground Coal Mines

AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of public hearings and close of comment 
period.

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

SUMMARY: The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is proposing 
requirements for refuge alternatives in underground coal mines and the 
training of miners in their use. The proposed rule also includes 
requirements for testing and approval of refuge alternatives. The 
proposal would implement section 13 of the Mine Improvement and New 
Emergency Response (MINER) Act of 2006. Consistent with the MINER Act, 
it includes MSHA's response to the National Institute for Occupational 
Safety and Health Report on Refuge Alternatives.

DATES: All comments must be received by midnight Eastern Standard Time 
on August 18, 2008. MSHA will hold 4 public hearings on July 29, July 
31, August 5, and August 7, 2008. Details about the public hearings are 
in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be clearly identified with ``RIN 1219-AB58'' 
and may be sent by any of the following methods:
    (1) Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments.
    (2) Electronic mail: [email protected]. Include ``RIN 1219-
AB58'' in the subject line of the message.
    (3) Facsimile: 202-693-9441. Include ``RIN 1219-AB58'' in the 
subject line of the message.
    (4) Regular Mail: MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and 
Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia 22209-
3939.
    (5) Hand Delivery or Courier: MSHA, Office of Standards, 
Regulations, and Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, 
Arlington, Virginia. Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the 21st 
floor.
    Comments can be accessed electronically at http://www.msha.gov 
under the Rules and Regs link. MSHA will post all comments on the 
Internet without change, including any personal information provided. 
Comments may also be reviewed at the Office of Standards, Regulations, 
and Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia. 
Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the 21st floor.
    MSHA maintains a list that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when rulemaking documents are published in the Federal 
Register. To subscribe, go to http://www.msha.gov/subscriptions/subscribe.aspx.
    Information Collection Requirements: Comments concerning the 
information collection requirements of this proposed rule must be 
clearly identified with ``RIN 1219-AB58'' and sent to both the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) and MSHA. Comments to OMB may be sent by 
mail addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, 725 
17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attn: Desk Officer for MSHA. 
Comments to MSHA may be transmitted either electronically to zzMSHA-
[email protected], by facsimile to (202) 693-9441, or by regular mail, 
hand delivery, or courier to MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, 
and Variances, 1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia 22209-
3939.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia W. Silvey at 
[email protected] (E-mail), 202-693-9440 (Voice), or 202-693-9441 
(Fax).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The outline of this proposal is as follows:

I. Introduction
    A. Rulemaking Background
    B. Discussion of the Hazard
II. Section-by-Section Analysis
    A. Part 7 Approval
    B. Part 75 Safety Standards
III. Executive Order 12866
    A. Population at Risk
    B. Benefits
    C. Compliance Costs
IV. Feasibility
    A. Technological Feasibility
    B. Economic Feasibility
V. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act
    A. Definition of a Small Mine
    B. Factual Basis for Certification
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act
    A. Summary
    B. Procedural Details
VII. Other Regulatory Analyses
    A. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    B. The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 
1999: Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families
    C. Executive Order 12630: Government Actions and Interference 
With Constitutionally Protected Property Rights
    D. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
    E. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. Executive Order 13272: Proper Consideration of Small Entities 
in Agency Rulemaking

Public Hearings

    MSHA will hold four public hearings on the proposed rule. These 
public hearings will begin at 9 a.m. and end after the last speaker 
speaks, and in any event not later than 5 p.m., on the following dates 
at the locations indicated:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Date                    Location        Contact  information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 29, 2008...............  Radisson Hotel Salt   (801) 933-8022.
                               Lake City Downtown,
                               215 West South
                               Temple, Salt Lake
                               City, UT 84101.
July 31, 2008...............  Marriott Charleston   (304) 345-6500.
                               Town Center, 200
                               Lee Street East,
                               Charleston, WV
                               25301.
August 5, 2008..............  Hilton Suites         (859) 271-4000.
                               Lexington Green,
                               245 Lexington Green
                               Circle, Lexington,
                               KY 40503.
August 7, 2008..............  Sheraton Birmingham,  (205) 324-5000.
                               2101 Richard
                               Arrington Jr.
                               Blvd., Birmingham,
                               AL 35203.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The hearings will begin with an opening statement from MSHA, 
followed by an opportunity for members of the public to make oral 
presentations. Requests to speak at a hearing should be made at least 5 
days prior to the hearing date. Requests to speak may be made by 
telephone (202-693-9440), facsimile (202-693-9441), or mail (MSHA, 
Office

[[Page 34141]]

of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 
2350, Arlington, Virginia 22209-3939).
    Any unallocated time at the end of each hearing will be made 
available to persons making same-day requests to speak. Any unallocated 
time at the end of each hearing will be made available to persons 
making same-day requests to speak. Speakers will speak in the order 
that they sign in at the hearing. At the discretion of the presiding 
official, the time allocated to each speaker for their presentation may 
be limited. Speakers and other attendees may also present information 
to the MSHA panel for inclusion in the rulemaking record.
    The hearings will be conducted in an informal manner. Formal rules 
of evidence and cross examination will not apply. The hearing panel may 
ask questions of speakers. Speakers and other attendees may present 
written information to the MSHA panel for inclusion in the rulemaking 
record. MSHA will accept post-hearing written comments and data for the 
record from any interested party, including those not presenting oral 
statements, until the close of the comment period. MSHA will make 
transcripts of the hearings, post them on MSHA's Web site http://www.msha.gov, and include them in the rulemaking record.

I. Introduction

    This proposed rule would implement section 13 of the Mine 
Improvement and New Emergency Response (MINER) Act of 2006. It would 
require that operators include refuge alternatives in the Emergency 
Response Plan required by section 2 of the MINER Act. MSHA's objective, 
consistent with the MINER Act, is to improve the safety of mines and 
mining. Toward that end, the proposal would improve mine operators' 
preparedness for mine emergencies and require refuge alternatives 
underground to protect persons trapped when a life-threatening event 
occurs that makes escape impossible. Refuge alternatives can also be 
used to assist miners in escaping from the mine. MSHA developed this 
proposed rule based on Agency data and experience, NIOSH 
recommendations, research on available and developing technology, and 
regulations of several states. The proposed rule includes--
     New requirements for testing and approval of refuge 
alternatives and components of refuge alternatives;
     Requirements for the availability and maintenance of 
refuge alternatives and communication facilities for refuge 
alternatives; and
     Requirements for miners to be trained in the location, 
use, maintenance, and transportation of refuge alternatives.

A. Rulemaking Background

    Section 2 of the MINER Act requires underground coal mine operators 
to develop and adopt a written Emergency Response Plan (ERP), which 
must be approved by MSHA. The ERP provides for the evacuation of all 
individuals endangered by an emergency and the maintenance of 
individuals trapped underground. All ERPs must provide for emergency 
supplies of breathable air for individuals trapped underground 
sufficient to maintain them for a sustained period of time.
    MSHA issued Program Policy Letter (PPL) No. P06-V-10 (October 24, 
2006) to implement section 2 of the MINER Act. The PPL provides 
guidance to mine operators for developing ERPs and to MSHA District 
Managers in approving ERPs. MSHA issued Program Information Bulletin 
(PIB) No. P07-03 (February 8, 2007) to provide additional guidance to 
be used in conjunction with the PPL. The PIB represents the quantity of 
breathable air that would be sufficient to maintain persons for a 
sustained period of time.
    Section 13 of the MINER Act directs NIOSH to conduct research on 
refuge alternatives and submit a report on the results of the research 
to the Secretary of Labor, among others. Section 13 also directs the 
Secretary of Labor to--

* * * provide a response to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce of the House of Representatives containing a 
description of the actions, if any, that the Secretary intends to 
take based upon the report, including proposed regulatory changes 
and the reasons for such actions.

    MSHA has reviewed NIOSH's report and determined that refuge 
alternatives are practical and will increase the chance for survival 
for persons trapped in underground coal mines, when integrated into the 
mine's comprehensive escape and rescue plans.

B. Discussion of the Hazard

    MSHA reviewed a number of underground coal mine accident reports in 
the development of this proposed rule. The Agency discusses the 
following accidents, which reflect typical emergency conditions, 
hazards, and issues in underground coal mines.
    On March 9, 1976, an explosion occurred at the Scotia Mine in 
Kentucky. Fifteen miners died from the explosion. Of these fifteen 
miners, six were found behind a partially built protective structure.
    On December 19, 1984, a fire occurred at the Wilberg Mine in Utah. 
Twenty-eight miners were working on the section when the fire occurred. 
The intake airway and adjacent belt entry were impassable due to gas 
and smoke. One miner survived by using an SCSR and crawling on his 
stomach through the smoke-filled mine. The remaining twenty-seven 
miners who survived the fire, died while attempting to evacuate the 
mine.
    On July 24, 2002, a nonfatal entrapment accident caused by a water 
inundation occurred at Quecreek 1 Mine, Black Wolf Coal 
Company, Inc., located at Quecreek, Somerset County, Pennsylvania. Nine 
miners had attempted to escape, but were blocked by water. The miners 
were trapped for over 3 days before all were rescued.
    On January 2, 2006, an explosion in which 12 miners were trapped 
occurred at the Sago Mine, located near Tallmansville, West Virginia. 
The explosion killed one miner instantly and destroyed seals and filled 
portions of the mine with toxic levels of carbon monoxide. The victims' 
attempts to evacuate were unsuccessful and they barricaded themselves 
on the section. Unfortunately, the barricade was constructed in an area 
with high concentrations of carbon monoxide. Eleven miners died before 
they could be rescued and one was rescued although severely injured.
    On January 19, 2006, a fire occurred at the belt take-up storage 
unit of the Aracoma Alma Mine 1, located near Logan, West 
Virginia, resulting in the deaths of two miners. Miners in the affected 
area began an evacuation and, after traveling some distance out of the 
mine, encountered smoke and donned their self-contained self-rescue 
(SCSRs) devices. The two miners who died had become separated from 
their crew while attempting to escape.
    On May 20, 2006, an explosion occurred at the Kentucky Darby, LLC, 
Darby Mine No. 1, located near Holmes Mill, Kentucky. The forces from 
the explosion killed two miners. Four other miners attempted to 
evacuate and encountered thick smoke. At this point they donned their 
SCSRs and attempted to continue their evacuation. The miners eventually 
became separated and three died from carbon monoxide poisoning.
    Based on the MINER Act, MSHA data and experience, and the NIOSH 
report, MSHA is proposing regulations that address the approval and use 
of refuge alternatives in underground coal mines.

[[Page 34142]]

II. Section-By-Section Analysis

A. Part 7 Approval

    The proposal includes new requirements for approval of refuge 
alternatives for underground coal mines. The proposal also includes 
approval of components of refuge alternatives. Under the proposal, 
manufacturers could apply for approval of a pre-fabricated self-
contained refuge alternative or for approval of a refuge alternative 
component.
    MSHA is proposing the approval requirements in part 7 to allow 
refuge alternatives or components to be tested by applicants or third-
parties. MSHA has a 20-year history of administering this program, 
which has reduced product testing costs and improved approval 
efficiency. Under the proposal, the applicant, usually the 
manufacturer, would have to provide the required information and 
demonstrate that the refuge alternative or component meets the 
technical requirements and test criteria. Based upon an evaluation of 
this information, MSHA would issue an approval.
    The proposal would: Provide alternatives for satisfying the 
requirements; provide performance-based approval criteria; and promote 
innovative new technology. The proposal addresses requirements for a 
pre-fabricated self-contained refuge alternative and components for a 
refuge alternative:
     Structural, which would create an isolated atmosphere and 
contain the other integrated components.
     Pre-fabricated self-contained rescue alternative.
     Breathable air, which would include the means to supply 
safe concentrations of oxygen and dilute harmful gases.
     Air-monitoring, which would provide occupants of the 
refuge alternative with devices to measure the concentrations of 
oxygen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, methane, and other harmful 
gases.
     Harmful gas removal, which would provide for removal of 
harmful gases from the refuge alternative.
    The refuge alternative would have to include provisions for 
sanitation, food, water, and first-aid. These items would have to be 
approved in the ERP.
    The proposed requirements would assure that the refuge alternative 
could be used safely and effectively in underground coal mines and that 
the components could be used safely with each other.
    All of the existing general provisions of subpart A of part 7 would 
apply to refuge alternatives. Existing Sec.  7.8 addresses post-
approval product audit and requires that, on request the approval-
holder make a product available to MSHA for audit at no cost to MSHA, 
but no more than once a year except for cause. In addition, under 
existing Sec.  7.8, an audit would be conducted at a mutually agreeable 
site and time. MSHA anticipates that in appropriate instances, the 
Agency would travel to the manufacturer's site particularly for pre-
fabricated self-contained refuge alternatives and components. For 
refuge alternatives that are not pre-fabricated, i.e. constructed in 
place or materials pre-positioned, the structure would be approved by 
the District Manager in the Emergency Response Plan. Consistent with 
this requirement, the approval-holder must provide a refuge alternative 
or component to MSHA for audit.
Section 7.501 Purpose and Scope
    This proposal would state that the purpose of approved refuge 
alternatives is to provide a life-sustaining environment for miners 
trapped underground when escape is impossible. The proposal would also 
define the scope as applying to underground coal mines. Under the 
proposal, refuge alternatives could also be used to facilitate escape 
by sustaining trapped miners until they receive communications 
regarding escape options or until rescuers arrive. MSHA considers 
refuge alternatives as a last resort to protect persons who are unable 
to escape from an underground coal mine in the event of an emergency. 
In its report on refuge alternatives, NIOSH recognized that the 
``potential for refuge alternatives to save lives will only be realized 
to the extent that mine operators develop comprehensive escape and 
rescue plans that incorporate refuge alternatives.''
    Refuge alternatives that states have approved and those that MSHA 
has accepted in approved ERPs would meet the requirements of this 
proposed rule. When mine operators replace these refuge alternatives or 
components, the new refuge alternatives or components must meet the 
requirements of the proposed rule. Based on preliminary discussions 
with manufacturers, MSHA used the estimated service life of the pre-
fabricated self-contained refuge alternative. This would allow refuge 
alternatives to be used until replaced or 10 years maximum. This would 
allow refuge components to be used until replaced or 5 years maximum. 
MSHA solicits comments on the estimated service life of the pre-
fabricated self-contained units. Comments should be specific, including 
alternatives, rationale, and supporting data.
Section 7.502 Definitions
    The proposed rule includes several definitions to assist applicants 
in preparing applications for approval. Because refuge alternatives 
represent a relatively new technology for underground coal mines, the 
terminology may not be widely used. MSHA intends that these definitions 
would facilitate the mining community's understanding of the proposal.
    Apparent temperature.
    MSHA proposes to define apparent temperature as the combined 
effects of air movement, heat, and humidity on the human body. When no 
air movement is present, the apparent temperature equals the heat 
index. As heat and humidity increase, the amount of evaporation of 
sweat from the body decreases. The international scientific community 
generally recognizes a maximum safe apparent temperature of 95[deg] 
Fahrenheit (F) in confined survival environments,\1\ such as a refuge 
alternative. Body heat is the primary heat source in a refuge 
alternative and the humidity will likely be high in such a sealed 
environment. The carbon dioxide absorption process also generates heat 
and humidity. There is currently no permissible air conditioning 
equipment, which will overcome this problem in underground coal mines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 1 R.G. Steadman (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Breathable oxygen.
    MSHA proposes to define breathable oxygen as oxygen that is at 
least 99 percent pure with no harmful contaminants. Acceptable 
breathable oxygen is frequently supplied from a compressed gas cylinder 
as U.S. Pharmacopoeia medical oxygen or as aviator breathing oxygen. 
This definition is consistent with the attachment to MSHA's PIB P07-03: 
``Methods for Providing Breathable Air.'' MSHA solicits comments on the 
proposed definition. Comments should be specific, including 
alternatives, rationale, and supporting data.
    Flash fire.
    MSHA proposes to define flash fire as a fire that rapidly spreads 
through a diffuse fuel, such as airborne coal dust or methane, without 
producing damaging pressure. Flash fire may occur in an environment, 
such as an underground coal mine, where fuel and air become mixed in 
adequate concentrations to combust. In an underground coal mine, a 
flash fire can be a rapidly moving flame front from a

[[Page 34143]]

combustion explosion. In its report, NIOSH recommended that the fire 
resistance for refuge alternatives be 300 [deg]F for 3 seconds. They 
based this recommendation on NFPA-2113, but advised that additional 
investigation is warranted. A flash fire is defined by the National 
Fire Protection Association (NFPA 2113) as:

    A fire that spreads rapidly through a diffuse fuel, such as 
dust, gas, or vapors of an ignitable liquid, without the production 
of damaging pressure.

    NFPA 2113 also includes a longer explanation of flash fire in the 
Annex A.3.3.16. This explanation addresses flame temperatures for 
diffused fuel flash fires ranging from 1000[deg] to 1900 [deg]F.
    Noncombustible material.
    MSHA proposes to define noncombustible material as material that 
will not ignite, burn, support combustion, or release flammable vapors 
when subjected to fire or heat.
    Overpressure.
    MSHA proposes to define overpressure as the pressure above the 
background atmospheric pressure. For example, air pressure in a car 
tire is measured with a pressure gauge as 30 psi, which is an 
overpressure. The absolute pressure of the air inside the tire is 44.7 
psi which is 14.7 psi or one atmosphere higher. Explosion pressures are 
normally expressed as an overpressure beyond standard atmospheric 
pressure.
    Refuge alternative.
    MSHA proposes to define refuge alternative as a protected, secure 
space with an isolated atmosphere and integrated components that create 
a life-sustaining environment for persons trapped in an underground 
coal mine.
    The proposed rule addresses refuge alternatives that consist of a 
protective structure, an airlock, an interior space, and components 
that provide for breathable air, air monitoring, and harmful gas 
removal. The refuge alternative would also include provisions for 
sanitation, lighting, communications, food and water, and first aid.
Section 7.503 Application Requirements
    Proposed paragraph (a) would require that an application include 
information to assure that MSHA can determine if a refuge alternative 
or component meets the technical requirements for approval, functions 
as intended, and is safe for use in an underground coal mine.
    Paragraph (a)(1) would require the application to contain the 
refuge alternative or component's make and model number, if applicable. 
This provision would assist MSHA in identifying specific units or parts 
from different companies.
    Paragraph (a)(2) would require that the application list the refuge 
alternative or component's parts, including the MSHA approval number 
for electric-powered equipment; each component's or part's in-mine 
shelf life, service life, and recommended replacement schedule; and the 
materials used in each component or part with their MSHA approval 
number or a statement that the materials are noncombustible. This 
proposed provision would assure that materials are safe for use in an 
underground coal mine. The hazardous nature of an underground coal mine 
requires that sources of ignition be eliminated. MSHA may have approved 
some equipment as intrinsically safe or permissible that may be used in 
a refuge alternative component. The confined space of an underground 
coal mine necessitates that materials be designed so that they will not 
contribute to a fire or give off harmful gases when exposed to heat.
    Paragraph (a)(3) would require the application to specify the 
capacity and duration (the number of persons it is designed to maintain 
and for how long) of the refuge alternative or component on a per-
person per-day basis. For example, the application would need to 
include the specific number of persons and a specific length of time 
that the refuge alternative or component could support. The application 
also would need to contain this same information for food, water, 
lighting, sanitation, and any other materials that must be provided to 
assure proper use of the refuge alternative or component. This 
information is necessary so that MSHA can appropriately evaluate the 
performance of the refuge alternative or component and determine if it 
meets the requirement that it sustain persons for 96 hours.
    Paragraph (a)(4) would require the application to specify the 
length, width, and height of space required for storage of each 
component. MSHA needs this information for components approved 
separately to assure that the refuge alternative will have enough 
usable space for occupants when all components are stored.
    Paragraph (b) would require that the application include additional 
information for the refuge alternative. This specific information is 
necessary for the applicant or third party to perform an adequate 
evaluation of the refuge alternative and for MSHA to approve the refuge 
alternative or component.
    Paragraph (b)(1) would require the application to describe the 
breathable air component, including drawings, air-supply sources, 
piping, regulators, and controls. This information is necessary for the 
applicant to demonstrate that all systems are included and in their 
proper location, to assure proper functioning of this component.
    Paragraph (b)(2) would require the application to specify the 
maximum volume of the refuge alternative, excluding the airlock; the 
dimensions of usable space provided for each person; and the interior 
dimensions of the airlock. This information is necessary to demonstrate 
that there is adequate usable space when all systems and components are 
shown in their respective place.
    Paragraph (b)(3) would require the application to specify the 
maximum allowable positive pressures of the refuge alternative and 
airlock and describe the means used to limit or control the positive 
pressure in the refuge alternative and airlock. Information on the 
refuge alternative and airlock is essential for MSHA to determine 
whether the atmospheric pressure in the refuge alternative will 
maintain good air as miners enter and pass through the airlock. The 
information will be used to demonstrate that the pressure will be 
adequate for the intended purpose but not excessive, which could create 
adverse physiological effects for the miners.
    Paragraph (b)(4) would require that the application specify the 
maximum allowable apparent temperature of the interior space of the 
refuge alternative and airlock and describe the means used to control 
the apparent temperature in the refuge alternative and airlock. This 
information provides a basis to determine whether the refuge 
alternative will protect miners from heat stress. Data show that 
apparent temperatures greater than 80 [deg]F are generally associated 
with some discomfort. Medical evidence reveals that values approaching 
or exceeding 105 [deg]F would be life-threatening, resulting in severe 
heat exhaustion or possible heatstroke if exposure is prolonged or 
physical activity high. The degree of heat stress would vary with age, 
health, and body characteristics.
    Paragraph (b)(5) would require that each application include 
drawings that show the features of each component and contain 
sufficient information to document that each component meets the 
technical requirements of this subpart. Drawings of each component 
would illustrate the internal configuration of the refuge alternative. 
Under the proposal, this information

[[Page 34144]]

would include the dimensions and layout of the refuge alternative 
components, controls, and materials necessary for proper operation. 
This information is necessary for the applicant or third party to make 
an appropriate and informed evaluation and of the unit to provide a 
basis for MSHA approval of the refuge alternative or component.
    Paragraph (b)(6) would require that the application include 
essential information or instructions, such as a training manual that 
contains sufficient detail to train personnel to transport, operate, 
and maintain the refuge alternative or component. MSHA recognizes that, 
as a general practice, manufacturers provide users with information 
necessary for safe and effective use of their products. Under the 
proposal, the applicant would be required to develop a training manual 
for each refuge alternative or component.
    Paragraph (b)(7) would require a summary of the procedures for 
constructing and activating refuge alternatives. MSHA recognizes that, 
as a general practice, manufacturers provide users with information 
necessary for safe and effective use of their products. This summary 
information would include all of the steps and procedures to construct 
and activate a refuge alternative. This information would be used in 
evaluating the approval and for instruction in the construction and 
activation of refuge alternatives.
    Paragraph (b)(8) would require a summary of the procedures related 
to using refuge alternatives. This summary information would include 
steps and procedures for using the refuge alternative during a 
substantial period of time. This information would be used in 
evaluating the approval and for instruction in using the refuge 
alternatives.
    Paragraph (b)(9) would require that the application contain the 
results of inspections, evaluations, calculations, and tests conducted 
under this subpart. MSHA would use this information to evaluate the 
effectiveness and compatibility of refuge alternative components. For 
example, the application would contain the calculation of the rate 
oxygen is delivered on a per person basis and the results of tests, 
including calculations, of the carbon dioxide removal (scrubbing) to 
demonstrate that the refuge alternative will maintain a safe atmosphere 
for 96 hours.
    Paragraph (c) would require that the application for the air-
monitoring component include additional information. This information 
is necessary for the applicant or third party to make an effective 
evaluation of the component to provide a basis for MSHA approval of the 
air-monitoring component.
    Paragraph (c)(1) would require that the application specify the 
types of sensors, their operating ranges, the gases measured, and any 
environmental limitations including the cross-sensitivity of each 
detector or device to other gases. This information on the air-
monitoring component is essential for MSHA to determine that persons 
inside the refuge alternative will be aware of the concentrations of 
carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and methane, inside and outside the 
refuge alternative, including the airlock. In addition, this will 
assure that oxygen concentrations can be monitored simultaneously.
    Paragraph (c)(2) would require that the application include the 
method for operation of each device so that it functions as necessary 
to test gas concentrations over a 96 hour period. This information will 
assist MSHA's evaluation of whether the air-monitoring component can 
sustain persons for 96 hours. The Agency recognizes that different 
types and combinations of instruments from several manufacturers may be 
used in an air-monitoring component. MSHA needs to assure that the 
different components are available and will provide reliable monitoring 
of breathable air as necessary over the 96-hour period. MSHA believes 
that a properly designed system would control gas concentrations inside 
the refuge alternative. The intent of this provision is that detectors 
would be used to periodically check gas concentrations in the refuge 
alternative and provide miners with this information.
    Paragraph (c)(3) would require that the application include 
procedures for monitoring and maintaining breathable air in the 
airlock, before and after purging. Under the proposal, breathable air 
must be provided in the airlock at all times. However, when miners 
enter the airlock following an emergency, it will be necessary to 
monitor and purge the air to remove any contaminants and minimize 
contamination inside the refuge alternative as miners pass through the 
airlock into the interior space.
    Paragraph (c)(4) would require that the application include 
instructions for determining the quality of the atmosphere in the 
airlock and interior of the refuge alternative and a means to maintain 
breathable air in the airlock. The quality of air inside the refuge 
alternative is vital to sustain trapped miners. The procedures for 
using the air-monitoring component are essential for MSHA to determine 
whether the component provides adequate means for trapped miners to 
verify the quality of the air inside and outside the refuge 
alternative.
    Paragraph (d) would require that the application specify the volume 
of breathable air available for removing harmful gas, both at start-up 
and while persons enter or exit through the airlock; and the maximum 
volume of each gas that the component is designed to remove on a per-
miner per-day basis. Information on harmful gas removal is essential 
for MSHA to determine the ability of the refuge alternative to sustain 
occupants for 96 hours. The purpose of this component is primarily to 
remove carbon dioxide exhaled by the occupants. MSHA also intends that 
this component be capable of removing toxic and irritant gases, fumes, 
mists, and dusts that may enter the refuge alternative through the 
airlock.
    Paragraph (e) would require that the applicant certify that each 
component is constructed of suitable materials, is of good quality 
workmanship, is based on sound engineering principles, is safe for its 
intended use, and is designed to be compatible with other components in 
the refuge alternative, within the limitations specified in the 
approval. This information is needed to assure that the application, 
test results, and construction quality are complete and accurate.
Section 7.504 Refuge Alternatives and Components; General Requirements
    Proposed Sec.  7.504 provides general safety and health 
requirements for refuge alternatives and components.
    Paragraph (a)(1) would require refuge alternatives and components 
to be intrinsically safe for use in an underground coal mine and 
designed with fire and explosion-proof features for use with an oxygen 
supply component. This requirement would assure that the refuge 
alternative or component does not contribute to a secondary fire or 
explosion.
    Paragraph (a)(2) would require that a refuge alternative or 
component not produce noise levels in excess of 85 dBA in the 
structure's interior. Noise above this level can be irritating and 
interferes with communication. Exposure to noise at or above the 85 dBA 
level could adversely affect hearing. Based on MSHA's knowledge, noise 
controls such as dampening material are available to control noise 
levels.
    Paragraph (a)(3) would require that the refuge alternative or 
component not liberate harmful or irritating gases or

[[Page 34145]]

particulates into the structure's interior or airlock. Some materials 
off-gas when heated. Vapors, aerosols or particulates should not be 
released into the refuge alternative. The proposed rule would require 
that materials used in a refuge alternative or component be tested and 
evaluated to determine that nonmetallic materials do not release 
irritating odors or toxic gases when subjected to a flash fire test. 
The application would have to include the results of the tests and 
evaluation.
    Paragraph (a)(4) would require that the refuge alternative or 
component be designed to be moved safely with devices such as tow bars. 
MSHA recognizes that refuge alternatives could be a hazard to miners 
during transport if not properly designed and if miners are not 
adequately trained. Based on MSHA's experience, inadequate rigging and 
towing devices could cause accidents to miners. The refuge alternative 
should be designed with proper connections and devices to eliminate or 
reduce the use of chains, ropes, and slings. In addition, miners would 
need training on how to move a refuge alternative to avoid injury.
    Paragraph (a)(5) would require that the refuge alternative and 
components be designed to withstand damage during transport and 
handling. The proposed rule would require that designs incorporate 
bumpers, guarding, skids, packing and securing devices, and rigging 
components. Additionally the components and supplies must be 
configured, arranged, and stored to minimize shifting, movement, or 
damage during handling and routine transport. Training would 
incorporate precautions to prevent damage to the refuge alternatives 
and components while storing, handling, and transporting the equipment.
    Paragraph (b) would require that the apparent inside temperature be 
controlled to prevent heat stroke. The miners will produce heat within 
the confined space of the refuge alternative. The chemicals used to 
remove carbon dioxide also generate heat. Over time, the heat build-up 
could produce heat stroke. NIOSH stated that--

    Apparent temperature is a measure of heat stress, but other 
indices or standards could be used, such as the wet bulb globe 
temperature. Regardless of the index selected, the numerical value 
must be assigned to prevent heat stroke.

    Paragraph (b)(1) would require that, when used in accordance with 
the manufacturer's instructions and defined limitations, the apparent 
temperature in the fully occupied refuge alternative not exceed 95[deg] 
Fahrenheit. The apparent temperature is a measure of relative 
discomfort due to the combined effect of heat and humidity. The concept 
of apparent temperature was developed by R.G. Steadman (1979) and is 
based on physiological studies of evaporative skin cooling for various 
combinations of ambient temperature and humidity. At higher dew-points, 
the apparent temperature exceeds the actual temperature and measures 
the increased physiological heat stress and discomfort associated with 
higher than comfortable humidity.
    The likelihood of adverse effects from heat may vary with a 
person's age, health, and body characteristics; however, apparent 
temperatures greater than 80 [deg]F are generally associated with some 
discomfort. Temperatures in excess of 105 [deg]F are considered life-
threatening, with severe heat exhaustion or heatstroke possible after 
prolonged exposure or significant physical activity. There is a general 
consensus among researchers that the apparent temperature within a 
confined space occupied by humans should not exceed 95 [deg]F.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ U.S. Department of Defense, National Aviation and Space 
Administration, Canadian, Australian, and the United Kingdom.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MSHA recognizes that body heat and heat generated by chemical 
reactions (i.e., CO2 scrubbing chemicals) are inherent heat-
producing sources within a refuge alternative. Ambient temperature in a 
refuge alternative also is affected by the mine temperature compounded 
by high humidity in the sealed environment. High humidity reduces a 
body's ability to regulate temperature by sweating, which could result 
in a dangerously elevated internal body temperature.
    Paragraph (b)(2) would require that calculations or tests be 
conducted to determine the maximum apparent temperature in the refuge 
alternative when used at maximum occupancy and in conjunction with 
required components calculations or test results. In addition, the 
proposed rule would require that an application include test results 
and calculations to demonstrate that the apparent temperature within 
the refuge alternative would not exceed 95 [deg]F when used in 
conjunction with required components and fully occupied.
    MSHA requests specific comments on the apparent temperature and 
mitigation of heat stress and heat stroke. Comments should address the 
generation of heat and the methods for measuring heat stress on persons 
occupying the refuge alternative. Comments should be specific including 
alternatives, rationale, safety benefits to miners, technological and 
economic feasibility, and supporting data.
    Paragraph (c) would require that refuge alternatives include a 
number of auxiliary requirements to enhance the safety and survival of 
persons in a refuge alternative. These requirements would include a 
means for communicating with persons outside, lighting, and first aid, 
and provisions for food, water, and sanitation.
    Paragraph (c)(1) would require that refuge alternatives accommodate 
communications. Paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii) would require that refuge 
alternative accommodate a telephone or an equivalent two-way 
communication facility that can be used from inside the refuge 
alternative, or a two-way wireless system when it is approved in the 
operator's Emergency Response Plan (ERP). Manufacturers would need to 
provide suitable ports, connections, jacks, and fittings for 
communication equipment, and ports and connections would need to be 
designed for electrical permissibility and maintaining air quality (gas 
tight cable entries) within the refuge alternative.
    MSHA requests comments on including a requirement that refuge 
alternatives be designed with a means to signal rescuers on the 
surface. This would assure that rescuers on the surface could be 
contacted if the communications systems become inoperable. This signal 
would be similar to what miners had done in the past by hammering on 
the roof, ribs, or floor to create sounds that can be detected by 
seismic devices located on the surface. A signaling device would need 
to be configured to produce a sound on the roof, ribs, or floor while 
maintaining the isolated atmosphere. Comments should be specific, 
including alternatives, rationale, safety benefits to miners, 
technological and economic feasibility, and supporting data.
    MSHA requests comments on including a requirement that the 
manufacturer design refuge alternatives with a means to signal 
underground rescuers with a homing device. This would assure that 
rescuers could detect the trapped miners within the mine. Comments 
should be specific, including alternatives, rationale, safety benefits 
to miners, technological and economic feasibility, and supporting data.
    Paragraph (c)(2) would require that refuge alternatives include 
lighting sufficient to perform tasks. Lighting that generates 
significant heat, or requires continual manual power for light 
generation, would be unacceptable. Light is essential to allow persons 
to read instructions, warnings, and gauges;

[[Page 34146]]

operate gas monitoring detectors; and perform other activities related 
to the operation of the refuge alternatives. MSHA recommends a minimum 
of 1 foot candle of lighting be provided per miner per day.\3\ The 
manufacturer or approval holder would have to measure the number of 
foot candles provided per miner per day and report this information in 
the refuge alternative's manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ MIL-STD-1472F, Lighting for bomb shelters, NOTICE 1,05 
December 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MSHA requests comments on the types, sources, and magnitude of 
lighting needed for the proper functioning of a refuge alternative and 
the needs of the occupants. Comments should be specific, including 
alternatives, rationale, safety benefits to miners, technological and 
economic feasibility, and supporting data.
    Paragraph (c)(3) would require that refuge alternatives include a 
means to effectively contain human waste and minimize objectionable 
odors. Information regarding the sanitation would assure that the 
manufacturer or approval holder has included an adequate means for 
containing waste.
    The proposed provisions on sanitation would encompass containment 
and disposal of waste. This provision would also require a means for 
operation and use, and a means, such as a plastic bag and closed 
receptacle, to contain the waste to prevent objectionable odors from 
being detected within the interior space. Provisions should include 
individually packaged sanitation supplies, including toilet paper and 
hand sanitizer. The manufacturer or approval holder would have to 
measure the length, width, and height of the container housing the 
sanitation component and report this information, together with 
operating instructions, in the refuge alternative's manual.
    Paragraph (c)(4) would require that refuge alternatives include 
first aid supplies to treat injuries. The provision would assure that a 
sufficient quantity of first aid supplies are available for injured 
miners.
    Paragraph (c)(5) would require that refuge alternatives be stocked 
with materials, parts, and tools for repairs of components. This 
requirement would assure that refuge alternative manufacturers provide 
a repair kit with necessary materials and appropriate tools to perform 
repairs. This should include adequate tools, metal repair materials, 
fiber material, adhesives, sealants, tapes, and general hardware (i.e., 
screws, bolts, rivets, wire, zippers and clips). Powered tools must be 
intrinsically safe and permissible.
    Paragraph (d) would require that containers used for storage of 
refuge alternative components be airtight, waterproof, and rodent-
proof; easy to open and close without the use of tools; and 
conspicuously marked with an expiration date and instructions for use 
of the component. This requirement would assure that the containers' 
contents are useable when needed. Some contents should be individually 
packaged and stored in containers. For example, food and water should 
be provided in individual, disposable packages and stored in a 
container.
Section 7.505 Structural Components
Proposed Sec.  7.505 Addresses the Structural Components Required for 
Refuge Alternatives
    Paragraph (a)(1) would require that refuge alternatives provide a 
minimum of 15 square feet of usable floor space and a minimum of 60 
cubic feet of usable volume per person. MSHA believes that these 
proposed minimums are necessary to provide adequate room for miners 
using the refuge alternative. Usable space or volume means space or 
volume without stored items. The space and volume requirements are 
exclusive of the airlock space and volume. NIOSH design parameters 
recommended 15 square feet and 85 cubic feet per miner. NIOSH stated 
that these recommendations were not to be considered absolute.
    Under this proposed provision, a space of 6 feet of length and 2.5 
feet of width would amount to 15 square feet. If the same area has a 
height of 4 feet, the miner would be provided with 60 cubic feet of 
space. For mines with lower heights, the 60 cubic feet of space may 
need to be attained by increasing the length or floor area.
    MSHA solicits comments on these minimum space and volume 
requirements. Comments should be specific, including alternatives, 
rationale, safety benefits to miners, technological and economic 
feasibility, and supporting data.
    The area cannot be determined solely by the number of miners that 
would be using the refuge alternative. Miners would need some free 
space to operate components, drink, eat, and use the sanitation 
facilities--and tend to injuries. Additional space may be needed for 
suspended curtains, as part of a passive system CO2 removal 
system. Also larger volumes seem to be more effective at dissipating 
heat.
    Paragraph (a)(2) would require that refuge alternatives include 
storage space for securing and protecting the components during 
transport and that permits ready access to components for inspection, 
maintenance, and activation.
    The proposed rule is intended to provide adequate storage space in 
addition to the usable space required for persons occupying the unit. 
The storage space is required for the supplies in containers. The 
containers need to be secured to prevent movement during transport. The 
supplies should be located to provide usable space for miners and to be 
accessible for inspection while the refuge alternative is stored. The 
components should be positioned to allow for visual checks for 
availability, readiness and shelf life dates.
    Paragraph (a)(3) would require that refuge alternatives include an 
airlock that creates a barrier to isolate the interior space from the 
mine atmosphere, except for a refuge alternative capable of maintaining 
adequate positive pressure. The intent of this provision is to provide 
breathable air to miners entering the refuge alternative if the mine 
atmosphere is contaminated. The miners would need to go into the refuge 
alternative through an airlock supplied with breathable air. The 
airlock would minimize the amount of contaminated mine air that could 
enter the interior space of the refuge alternative. The airlock would 
need to have positive pressure to prevent the contaminated atmosphere 
from entering the airlock when the outside door is opened. Conversely 
when the inside door of the airlock is opened, the air inside the 
airlock should not readily enter the interior space of the refuge 
alternative. Pressures need to be different between the interior space, 
airlock space and mine atmosphere. Pressures need to be incrementally 
higher in the interior space as compared to the airlock and the airlock 
pressure needs to be higher than the mine atmosphere. Miners will pass 
through the airlock via airtight doors into the interior space.
    The proposed rule includes an exception for an airlock if the 
refuge alternative is capable of maintaining adequate positive 
pressure. The positive pressure would prevent outside air from 
contaminating the refuge alternative, therefore an airlock would not be 
necessary.
    Paragraph (a)(3)(i) would require that the airlock be designed to 
be used multiple times to accommodate the structure's maximum 
occupancy. This provision would assure access for the number of persons 
for which the refuge alternative is designed.

[[Page 34147]]

    Paragraph (a)(3)(ii) would require that the airlock be configured 
to accommodate a stretcher without compromising the airlock's function. 
Following a mine accident, miners that would use the refuge alternative 
may be injured and transported on a stretcher. The airlock would need 
to be an adequate length to accommodate the stretcher (with injured 
miner) in the airlock with the outside door closed (to allow the 
interior door to be opened for access to the interior space).
    Paragraph (a)(4) would require that refuge alternatives be designed 
and constructed to withstand 15 pounds per square inch (psi) 
overpressure for 0.2 seconds prior to activation. Proposed paragraph 
(a)(5) would require that refuge alternatives be designed and 
constructed to withstand exposure to a flash fire of 300 
[deg]Fahrenheit for 3 seconds prior to activation.
    Paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5) would assure that the refuge 
alternative would be able to withstand an initial explosion and fire. 
These provisions would also assure that the components are not damaged 
and are able to function as intended.
    Paragraph (a)(6) would require that refuge alternatives be 
constructed with materials that are noncombustible or MSHA-approved 
flame-resistant. MSHA tests for flame resistance of brattice cloth 
under 30 CFR 7.27 could be used to determine the flame resistance of 
noncombustible materials in refuge alternatives. Materials under this 
provision could include, but would not be limited to inflatable 
stoppings, inflatable shelters, and any materials providing a barrier 
used to protect the inside atmosphere from the hazardous outside 
atmosphere. Materials are generally tested for noncombustibility under 
ASTM E 136 ``Standard Test Method for Behavior of Materials in a 
Vertical Tube Furnace at 750 Degrees C'' (2004), although a similar ISO 
test, ``ISO 1182:2002'' also exists.
    Paragraph (a)(7) would require that refuge alternatives be 
constructed from reinforced material that has sufficient durability to 
withstand routine handling and resist puncture and tearing during 
activation and use. Refuge alternatives need to be capable of 
withstanding the harsh mining environment and require materials to 
withstand abrasion, tears and punctures during handling and activation. 
This especially applies to inflatable-type stoppings and tent refuge 
alternatives. These materials must be made to isolate areas without 
compromising the interior atmosphere of the refuge alternative.
    Paragraph (a)(8) would require that refuge alternatives be guarded 
or reinforced to prevent damage that would hinder activation, entry, or 
use. This paragraph would assure the refuge alternative design 
incorporates protective features to protect the integrity of the 
barrier and operation of doors, inflatable extensions of the refuge 
alternative, or any other functions necessary to use the refuge 
alternative.
    Paragraph (a)(9) would require that refuge alternatives be designed 
to permit measurement of outside gas concentrations without exiting the 
structure or allowing entry of the outside atmosphere. Miners would 
need to conduct gas monitoring of the atmosphere outside of the 
isolated interior space to monitor harmful gas levels outside the 
refuge alternative when there is a lack of communication with rescuers 
and the occupants are considering whether evacuation is a viable 
option. To assure the safety of the miners, the design should 
incorporate methods or equipment that can monitor outside of the 
interior space without contamination.
    Proposed Sec.  7.505(b) would address tests for the structural 
components required for refuge alternatives.
    Paragraph (b)(1) would require that tests be conducted to determine 
or demonstrate that the refuge alternative can be constructed, 
activated and used as intended. Under this provision, trained persons 
would need to be able to fully activate the structure, without the use 
of tools, within 10 minutes of reaching the refuge alternative.
    This provision would assure that miners can use the refuge 
alternative upon reaching it. Following an accident, the first actions 
of the miners are to attempt to evacuate wearing SCSRs. In a worst-case 
scenario, only one SCSR may be available to provide 60 minutes of 
breathable air. The first 30 minutes would enable the miner to attempt 
to evacuate and return to the refuge alternative if escape is 
impossible. If the miner cannot escape, and returns to a refuge 
alternative, the miner would have 10 minutes to establish a barrier 
between the interior and exterior atmospheres. The remaining 20 minutes 
of breathable air provided by the SCSR will allow refuge alternative 
purging to establish a breathable air atmosphere. It is expected that 
the testing under this paragraph would be conducted using simulated 
real-life situations and conditions, such as smoke, heat, humidity and 
darkness using SCSRs.
    Paragraph (b)(2) would test that an overpressure of 15 psi applied 
to the pre-activated refuge alternative structure for 0.2 seconds would 
not allow gases to pass through the barrier separating the interior and 
exterior atmospheres. Paragraph (b)(3) would test that a flash fire of 
300[deg] Fahrenheit for 3 seconds would not allow gases to pass from 
the outside to the inside of the structure.
    Paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) would assure that the refuge 
alternative is tested to verify that it will withstand an initial 
explosion and fire. It would also assure the structure and components 
are intact following a fire or explosion. The testing should 
demonstrate that the integrity of the barrier and operation of doors is 
maintained.
    MSHA tests for flame resistance of brattice cloth at 30 CFR 7.27 
could be used to determine the flame resistance of noncombustible 
materials in refuge alternatives. Materials under this provision could 
include, but would not be limited to inflatable stoppings, inflatable 
shelters, and any materials providing a barrier used to protect the 
inside atmosphere from the hazardous outside atmosphere. Materials are 
generally tested for noncombustibility using ASTM E 136 ``Standard Test 
Method for Behavior of Materials in a Vertical Tube Furnace at 750 
Degrees C'' (2004), although a similar ISO test, ``ISO 1182:2002'' also 
exists.
    Paragraph (b)(4) would test that the expected overpressure forces 
do not prevent the stored components from operating. Paragraph (b)(5) 
would test that a flash fire does not prevent the stored components 
from operating. Paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(5) would assure that refuge 
alternatives are tested to demonstrate that they will withstand an 
initial explosion and fire. Additionally, the test should assure that 
an isolated atmosphere is provided for the miners and the components 
are not damaged and are able to function as intended.
    Paragraph (b)(6) would require testing to demonstrate that each 
structure resists puncture and tearing when tested in accordance with 
ASTM D2582-07 ``Standard Test Method for Puncture-Propagation Tear 
Resistance of Plastic Film and Thin Sheeting.'' This provision will 
test the capability of material used to construct the refuge 
alternative. The material must withstand the harsh mining environment 
and abrasion, tears, and punctures during handling, transportation and 
activation. This especially applies to inflatable-type stoppings and 
tent refuge alternatives. These materials must be made to maintain 
barriers without compromising the atmosphere established on the 
interior of the refuge alternative.
    Paragraph (b)(7) would require that each reasonably anticipated 
repair can be completed within 10 minutes of opening the storage space 
for repair

[[Page 34148]]

materials and tools. The inflatable-type refuge alternative has the 
potential to be ripped, torn or develop a leak. The refuge alternative 
must maintain an isolated atmosphere at all times. If a leak or tear 
occurs, the miners should be able to repair it with little delay or 
their safety could be jeopardized. The test would demonstrate that a 
miner would be able to make a repair, such as mending a tear or 
resealing the fabric, within 10 minutes of opening the storage space.
    Paragraph (b)(8) would require that nonmetallic materials used to 
construct the refuge alternative, not release harmful gases or 
noticeable odors before or after the flash fire test. The test would 
determine the identity and concentrations of gases released. This 
provision would require a test of the material used to construct the 
refuge alternative to assure that the materials do not emit noticeable 
odors that may sicken the miners occupying the refuge alternative. The 
testing should include provisions and instruments for detecting any 
released gases. Materials (i.e., paints, plastics, fiber, etc.) used in 
the manufacturing of the refuge alternative should not release harmful 
fumes, vapors, or gases.
    Proposed Sec.  7.505(c) addresses refuge alternatives that use 
pressurized air to activate the structure or maintain its shape.
    Paragraph (c)(1) would require a pressure regulator or other means 
to prevent over-pressurization of structures that use pressurized air 
to activate the structure or maintain its shape. Over-pressurization of 
the interior space or airlock space would be detrimental to the safety 
of the miners. The regulator should be designed to assure that proper 
relief of overpressure can be accomplished.
    Paragraph (c)(2) would require inclusion of a means to repair and 
repressurize the structure in case of failure of the structure or loss 
of air pressure. If the inflatable-type structure is damaged or leaks, 
it will need repair and additional compressed air to establish the 
pressure and volume of air that was lost.
    Proposed Sec.  7.505(d)(1) would require that refuge alternatives 
be designed such that pre-shift examination of the components critical 
for activation can be conducted without entering the structure. 
Paragraph (d)(2) would require that a refuge alternative be designed to 
provide a means to indicate unauthorized entry or tampering. Paragraphs 
(d)(1) and (d)(2) would assure that the refuge alternative is designed 
to allow for all necessary inspections. The gauges and controls for 
critical components, such as compressed air and oxygen, should be easy 
to observe to determine the readiness of those components.
Section 7.506 Breathable Air Components
    Paragraph (a) would require that breathable air be supplied by 
compressed air cylinders, compressed breathable-oxygen cylinders, fans 
installed on the surface or compressors installed on the surface. Only 
uncontaminated breathable air is allowed to be supplied to the refuge 
alternative.
    Maintaining breathable air inside the refuge alternative is vital 
to sustain persons trapped underground. Currently MSHA will accept 
compressed air cylinders and compressed breathable-oxygen cylinders as 
a means to supply breathable air in underground coal mines. MSHA will 
also accept fans or compressors installed on the surface as a means to 
supply breathable air in these mines. The proposed rule addresses 
MSHA's need to evaluate whether breathable air components will meet the 
requirement for sustaining persons for 96 hours in a refuge 
alternative. Provisions regarding the proper use of approved breathable 
air components are important for MSHA to use in determining that a 
component will provide adequate air inside the refuge alternative.
    The Agency recognizes that different types and combinations of 
breathable air components from several manufacturers may be used to 
provide breathable air for refuge alternatives. MSHA needs to assure 
that these components and combination of components are reliable and 
ready to use for maintaining persons as necessary over the 96-hour 
period.
    Paragraph (b) would require that mechanisms be provided and 
procedures be followed within the refuge alternative such that (1) 
breathable air sustain each person for 96 hours; (2) the oxygen 
concentration be maintained at levels between 18.5 and 23 percent; and 
(3) the average carbon dioxide concentration be maintained at 1.0 
percent or less, with excursions not to exceed 2.5 percent.
    Paragraph (b)(1) addresses MSHA's need to evaluate the 
effectiveness and compatibility of the breathable air components to 
assure that the supply of breathable air is sufficient to sustain 
persons occupying the refuge alternative for 96 hours. In MSHA's 
February 8, 2007, Program Information Bulletin No. P07-03, (PIB P07-
03), MSHA addressed that the Agency considered 96 hours to be 
necessary. MSHA concluded that a 96-hour supply was warranted, and 
accordingly, the Agency is proposing 96 hours as a time that breathable 
air would need to be provided. MSHA solicits comments on the proposed 
96-hour supply of breathable air. Comments should be specific, 
including alternatives, rationale, safety benefits to miners, 
technological and economic feasibility, and supporting data.
    In arriving at this 96-hour minimum, MSHA reviewed recent and 
historical data on entrapments. While it is clear that refuge 
alternatives can save the lives of trapped persons, it was not clear 
how long refuge alternatives should be capable of sustaining miners. 
The depth of the mine, the geology of the overburden, and the terrain 
above the mine significantly affects rescue activities.
    Paragraph (b)(2) would require that mechanisms be provided and 
procedures be followed within the refuge alternative such that the 
oxygen concentration be maintained at levels between 18.5 and 23 
percent. In this subpart, MSHA is defining breathable oxygen as oxygen 
that is at least 99 percent pure with no harmful contaminants. 
Acceptable breathable oxygen is frequently supplied from a compressed 
gas cylinder as U.S. Pharmacopoeia medical oxygen or as aviator 
breathing oxygen. In addition, consistent with NIOSH's recommendation, 
the Agency proposes that breathable air contain an oxygen concentration 
between 18.5 and 23 percent.
    Paragraph (b)(3) would require that the average carbon dioxide 
concentration be maintained at 1.0 percent or less, with excursions not 
to exceed 2.5 percent. In this subpart, MSHA proposes that breathable 
air contain no harmful quantities of asphyxiant, irritant, or toxic 
gases, fumes, mists, or dusts. This is consistent with NIOSH's 
recommendation. The provision proposes that the carbon dioxide 
concentration not exceed a 1.0 percent time weighted average over the 
rated duration of the refuge alternative with excursions not to exceed 
2.5 percent.
    MSHA is assuming that breathing rates for miners who have reached 
refuge alternatives would consist of activity levels of \4/5\ at rest 
and \1/5\ moderate activity. Therefore, using the respiratory quotient, 
which is the ratio of CO2 that expelled to O2 
consumed, the average carbon dioxide generation is 1.08 cubic feet per 
hour per person. These breathing rates were based upon the U.S. Bureau 
of Mines Foster Miller Report of 1983, ``Development of

[[Page 34149]]

Guidelines for Rescue Chambers,'' Volume I (Foster Miller report).
    The Agency recognizes that in an enclosed space, miners may die 
from the effects of CO2 rather than the effects of 
O2 deficiency. In PIB P07-03, MSHA demonstrated the rate at 
which a person would overexpose from carbon dioxide if carbon dioxide 
were not removed from the environment. MSHA used air supply 
calculations and activity levels based upon information provided in the 
Foster Miller report. The Agency used a hypothetical sealed enclosed 
space with a volume of 1,800 cubic feet (20 feet long, 18 feet wide and 
5 feet high) that contained one person. The initial air quality was 
assumed to be 19.5% O2, and 0.03% CO2, and the 
breathing rate (\4/5\ at rest and \1/5\ moderate activity) for oxygen 
inhaled is 0.022 cubic feet per minute per person.
    For this example, MSHA found that one miner could be maintained 
49.5 hours in an enclosed space with 1,800 cubic feet and initial air 
quality of 19.5% O2, and 0.03% CO2. This equates 
to 1.65 minutes per cubic foot of enclosed space (volume). 
Correspondingly, 10 miners could be maintained in a 1,800 cubic foot 
space for 4.95 hours before the CO2 concentration reached 
the defined unacceptable level. In addition, 10 miners in the above 
defined 1,800 cubic feet volume would reach 10% CO2 and 
resulting unconsciousness in approximately 16.6 hours. Unacceptable 
level for CO2 would be 3% based on Peele Mining Engineers' 
Handbook and current MSHA Short Term Exposure Limits.
    Paragraph (c) would require that breathable air supplied by 
compressed air from cylinders, fans, or compressors provide a minimum 
flow rate of 12.5 cubic feet per minute of breathable air for each 
miner. MSHA proposes to use 12.5 cubic feet per minute of breathable 
air as a required volume for each miner based on the amount of air 
needed for respiration and dilution of CO2 and other harmful 
gases. In addition, the 12.5 cubic feet per minute flow rate would 
assure positive pressure to prevent contamination from the mine 
atmosphere. A maximum positive relief valve would need to be located in 
the refuge alternative. MSHA requests comments regarding the flow rate. 
Comments should be specific including alternatives, rationale, safety 
benefits to miners, technological and economic feasibility, and 
supporting data.
    MSHA considered the enclosed space as similar to a loose-hood 
respirator using supplied air. Flair Corporation Bulletin 270 revision 
H (4-01) indicates that OSHA requires a supply air of 6 to 15 cfm (360 
to 900 cfm) for supplied air hoods (continuous flow supplied air 
respirators) to purge accumulated carbon dioxide. The 12.5 cfm per 
person fell within this range. Engineering handbooks recommend 
ventilation rates in the range 10-15 cfm of fresh air per person for 
offices with 12.5 cfm per person being the midpoint of this range. MSHA 
believes that these quantities are conservative. However, they are 
design parameters for a life support system, which demands a more 
cautious approach. In addition, compressor wear reduces performance and 
the system will become less efficient with age.
    The Agency considers that the use of compressed air cylinders as 
the sole means of providing breathable air may be impractical and 
encourages mine operators to consider other options. As MSHA pointed 
out in PIB P07-03, a fan or equivalent method should be used to force 
fresh air into the hole with enough positive pressure to overcome total 
mine pressure to deliver sufficient quantities of breathable air. 
Compressor air intakes should be installed and maintained to assure 
that only clean, uncontaminated air enters the compressors. Mines 
should assure compressors have the capacity to deliver the required 
volume of air at the point of expected usage.
    Paragraph (c)(1) would require that compressed air from cylinders, 
fans or compressors provide a minimum flow rate of 12.5 cubic feet per 
minute of breathable air for each miner. Fans or compressors would be 
required to (i) be equipped with a carbon monoxide detector located at 
the surface that automatically provides a visual and audible alarm if 
carbon monoxide in supplied air exceeds 10 ppm; (ii) provide in-line 
air-purifying sorbent beds and filters or other equivalent means to 
assure the breathing air quality and prevent condensation; (iii) 
include maintenance instructions that provide specifications for 
periodic replacement or refurbishment of sorbent beds and filters or 
alternate means; (iv) provide an automatic means to assure that the 
maximum allowable positive pressure is not exceeded in the refuge 
alternative; (v) include warnings to assure that only uncontaminated 
breathable air is supplied to the refuge alternative; (vi) include air 
lines to supply breathable air from the fan or compressor to the refuge 
alternative; and (vii) assure that harmful or explosive gases, water, 
and other materials cannot enter the breathable air. In addition, the 
proposal would require that air lines be capable of preventing or 
removing water accumulation, and be designed and protected to prevent 
damage during normal mining operations, a flash fire of 300[deg] F for 
3 seconds, a pressure wave of 15 psi overpressure for 0.2 seconds, and 
ground failure.
    In PIB P07-03, MSHA provided a number of recommendations regarding 
hazards stemming from the use of compressors to provide breathable air 
underground. The Agency also acknowledges that these recommendations 
would apply to the use of fans used for the same purpose. As such, MSHA 
recommended that compressor air intakes should be installed to assure 
that only clean, uncontaminated air enters the compressors. Care should 
be exercised when using compressors in the vicinity of other equipment 
having gas or diesel engines. Gas engines emit carbon monoxide (toxic 
fumes) and diesel engines emit sulfur dioxide (noxious fumes) and 
nitrogen oxides. Compressors requiring oil can generate carbon monoxide 
(CO) internally which can be supplied inadvertently to miners. Oil-type 
compressors could be used; however, the air quality must be sampled 
and/or controlled using CO filtration. Oil-less compressors do not 
generate carbon monoxide; thus, no CO filtering is required.
    Paragraph (c)(1)(i) would require carbon monoxide detectors for 
compressors or fans at the surface that automatically provide a visual 
and audible alarm if carbon monoxide in supplied air exceeds 10 ppm 
because compressors powered by gas engines emit carbon monoxide. 
Through the use of detectors at the surface, this provision is intended 
to assure that harmful levels of carbon monoxide would not be 
transferred into the refuge alternative from this equipment. MSHA is 
proposing to use the same early warning level for carbon monoxide in 
compressor supplied breathable air as established by OSHA, which will 
maintain uniformity in requirements for the use of such specialized 
equipment. MSHA believes warning operators when the CO level exceeds 10 
ppm will help maintain safe breathable air in the refuge alternative. 
MSHA solicits comments on this provision including alternatives.
    Paragraph (c)(1)(ii) would require in-line air-purifying sorbent 
beds and filters or other equivalent means to assure the breathing air 
quality and prevent condensation. Sorbent beds and filters would help 
assure that the air quality is maintained and condensation is 
prevented.
    Paragraph (c)(1)(iii) would require maintenance instructions that 
provide specifications for periodic replacement or refurbishment of 
sorbent beds and filters or alternate means. Proper

[[Page 34150]]

maintenance and periodic replacement of sorbent beds and filters would 
help assure that the air quality is maintained and condensation is 
prevented.
    Paragraph (c)(1)(iv) would require that fans or compressors provide 
positive pressure and an automatic means to assure that the pressure is 
relieved in the refuge alternative at 0.25 psi above mine atmospheric 
pressure. MSHA believes that positive pressure to exceed total mine 
pressure will prevent contamination and allow sufficient quantities of 
breathable air. The pressure should be adequate for the intended 
purpose, but not excessive where it creates adverse physiological 
effects for the miners. An automatic means, such as a relief valve set 
at 0.25 psi, should be provided to assure that the refuge alternative 
is not over-pressurized if breathable air is being supplied through a 
borehole or other means. The Foster Miller report specifies a minimum 
of 5 inches of water gage overpressure in the refuge alternative which 
is equivalent to approximately 0.18 psi. Currently, most manufactured 
refuge alternatives have relief valves set at 0.25 psi. Having too much 
pressure differential would make opening doors difficult for miners 
entering the refuge alternative. MSHA requests comments on the proposed 
setting for pressure relief and whether a higher pressure relief should 
be required. Comments should be specific including alternatives, 
rationale, safety benefits to miners, technological and economic 
feasibility, and supporting data.
    Paragraph (c)(1)(v) would require warnings to assure that only 
uncontaminated breathable air is supplied to the refuge alternative. 
This provision is intended to assure that only clean, uncontaminated 
air enters the compressors. Care should be exercised when using 
compressors or fans in the vicinity of other equipment having gas or 
diesel engines.
    Paragraph (c)(1)(vi) would require that fans or compressors 
supplying breathable air underground include air lines to supply the 
air to the refuge alternative, that (A) air lines be capable of 
preventing or removing water accumulation, and that (B) air lines be 
designed and protected to prevent damage during normal mining 
operations, a flash fire of 300 [deg]F for 3 seconds, a pressure wave 
of 15 psi overpressure for 0.2 seconds, and ground failure.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(A) is intended to prevent 
accumulation of water, which could affect the quantity and quality of 
breathable air provided underground. Moisture-laden air should not be 
pumped into the area where miners are trapped. If this moisture is not 
removed water could accumulate in the refuge alternative. All air 
supply systems must provide a means of preventing and removing the 
accumulation of water. MSHA anticipates air dryers with drain valves 
will be used. Air lines or pipes that are pre-installed must also be 
capped to prevent the entry of rain or moisture-laden air. If 
horizontal runs of air lines or pipes are used, they must be provided 
with a means to automatically drain any water accumulation.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(B) is intended to provide protection 
for lines that come from boreholes or air lines from the surface that 
are extended underground to a refuge alternative. This protection could 
consist of burying pipes by trenching deep enough to protect the pipes 
from mine traffic, explosions, ground movement or equipment damage.
    Paragraph (c)(1)(vii) would assure that harmful or explosive gases, 
water, and other materials cannot enter the breathable air. When 
connecting equipment to boreholes that enter the mine, precautions must 
be taken to prevent explosive or harmful gases from entering the 
equipment supplying the breathable air. Harmful gases could contaminate 
filters or other components or collect in the equipment and affect the 
quality of the air being supplied to the trapped miners.
    Paragraph (c)(2) would require redundant fans or compressors and 
power sources to permit prompt reactivation of equipment in the event 
of failure. It is crucial to maintain a continuous supply of breathable 
air to persons trapped underground and MSHA believes that redundant 
systems would assure that the supply is maintained in the event of 
failure of one of these systems.
    Paragraph (d) would require that compressed, breathable oxygen (1) 
include instructions for activation and operation; (2) provide oxygen 
at a minimum flow rate of 1.32 cubic feet per hour per miner; (3) 
include a means to readily regulate the pressure and volume of the 
compressed oxygen; (4) include an independent regulator as a backup in 
case of failure; and (5) be used only with regulators, piping, and 
other equipment that is certified and maintained to prevent ignition or 
combustion.
    Paragraph (d)(1) would require that compressed, breathable oxygen 
include instructions for activation and operation. This information 
will assure that mine operators have the proper information to 
correctly perform the tasks involving activating compressed oxygen 
cylinders. MSHA believes that failure to properly perform these tasks 
may imperil the lives of the miners within the refuge alternative. 
Instructions could include such items as checking for loose 
connections, leaking gas sounds, damage to hoses along their lengths or 
at their fittings, and broken gauges. The instructions would also help 
to assure that tanks are secured and pressure regulators are properly 
set and that wrenches and pliers will be in proper working order. Safe 
Use of Oxygen and Oxygen Systems: Guidelines for Oxygen System Design, 
Materials Selection, Operations, Storage, and Transportation, ASTM 
Stock No.: MNL 36.
    Paragraph (d)(2) would require that compressed, breathable oxygen 
provides oxygen at a minimum flow rate of 1.32 cubic feet per hour per 
miner. MSHA is assuming that breathing rates for miners who are using a 
refuge alternative would reflect activity levels of \4/5\ at rest and 
\1/5\ moderate activity. Oxygen consumption at this assumed breathing 
rate would be 1.32 cubic feet per hour per person (0.022 cubic feet per 
minute per person). These oxygen consumption rates were based upon the 
U.S. Bureau of Mines Foster Miller Report of 1983, ``Development of 
Guidelines for Rescue Chambers,'' Volume I.
    Paragraph (d)(3) would require that compressed, breathable oxygen 
provide a means to readily regulate the pressure and volume of the 
compressed oxygen. Regulating is necessary to assure that oxygen levels 
remain within the recommended values. In addition, all oxygen valves 
should be opened slowly to prevent the oxygen from heating.
    Paragraph (d)(4) would require that compressed, breathable oxygen 
include an independent regulator as a backup in case of failure. It is 
crucial to maintain a continuous supply of breathable air to persons 
trapped underground. MSHA believes that redundant regulators would 
assure that the miners are maintained in the event of failure of one of 
these regulators. MSHA expects redundant oxygen control valves and 
regulators will be provided to assure continual availability of 
breathable oxygen. This provision is meant to assure that pre-connected 
valves and regulators are available. This will assure that miners will 
always have breathable air available in case of component failures.
    Paragraph (d)(5) would require that compressed, breathable oxygen 
be used only with regulators, piping, and other equipment that is 
certified and maintained to prevent ignition or combustion. Components 
such as

[[Page 34151]]

piping, couplings, valves and regulators used to supply air to the 
refuge alternative must be maintained in operable condition and in 
accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. These components will 
likely be stored by the mine operator until needed for training or 
rescue operations. Improper storage of these components can lead to 
their corrosion or their contamination. Compressed oxygen components 
must not be used with previously used compressed air system components 
due to the fire and explosion hazards resulting from pure oxygen coming 
into contact with oil and grease that is inherent with used compressed 
air systems.
    Paragraph (e) would require that carbon dioxide removal components 
(1) include instructions for activation and operation; (2) be used with 
breathable air cylinders or oxygen cylinders; (3) remove carbon dioxide 
at a rate of 1.08 cubic feet per hour per miner; (4) be contained to 
prevent contact with the chemicals and the release of airborne 
particles; (5) be provided and packaged with all necessary means to 
expedite use, such as hangers, racks, and clips; and (6) be stored in 
containers that are conspicuously marked with instructions for disposal 
of used chemicals.
    Paragraph (e)(1) would require that carbon dioxide removal 
components include instruction for activation and operation. MSHA needs 
this information to assure that mine operators have the proper 
information to correctly perform tasks involving activating carbon 
dioxide removal components. Carbon dioxide is a natural asphyxiant 
produced through human respiration. To prevent the accumulation of 
harmful concentrations of carbon dioxide, scrubbing systems have been 
developed to chemically absorb the carbon dioxide. When entering a 
refuge alternative, miners would have to perform tasks to activate the 
carbon dioxide removal components. The miners would have to purge the 
atmosphere (in some cases), turn on the breathable air and maintain a 
viable atmosphere. Depending on the type of CO2 removal 
system, instructions could include activation scheduling and proper 
handling of these materials. MSHA believes that failure to properly 
perform these tasks may imperil the lives of the miners within the 
refuge alternative.
    Paragraph (e)(2) would require that carbon dioxide removal 
components be used with breathable air cylinders or oxygen cylinders. 
MSHA needs to assure that carbon dioxide removal components are 
compatible with the overall system for providing breathable air.
    Paragraph (e)(3) would require that carbon dioxide removal 
components remove carbon dioxide at a rate of 1.08 cubic feet per hour 
per miner. MSHA is assuming that breathing rates for miners who have 
reached refuge alternatives would reflect activity levels of \4/5\ at 
rest and \1/5\ moderate activity. Therefore, using the respiratory 
quotient, which is the ratio of CO2 expelled to 
O2 consumed, the average carbon dioxide generation is 1.08 
cubic feet per hour per person. These breathing rates were based upon 
the Foster Miller report.
    Paragraph (e)(4) would require that carbon dioxide removal 
components be contained to prevent contact with the chemicals and the 
release of airborne particles. Commonly used CO2 removal 
systems include lithium hydroxide or soda lime curtains or soda lime 
cartridges. These systems will require proper handling and may involve 
using personal protective equipment. The NIOSH report stated that the 
scrubbing material must not become airborne or otherwise cause 
respiratory distress or other acute reaction.
    Paragraph (e)(5) would require that carbon dioxide removal 
components be provided and packaged with all necessary means to 
expedite use. Depending on the type of CO2 removal 
component, items such as hangers, racks, and clips may be required to 
activate and use this component.
    Paragraph (e)(6) would require that carbon dioxide removal 
components be stored in containers that are conspicuously marked with 
instructions for disposal of used chemicals. Manufacturers would need 
to provide instructions for disposal of used chemicals.
    Paragraph (f) would require the carbon dioxide removal component be 
tested and evaluated to demonstrate that it can maintain average carbon 
dioxide concentration at 1.0 percent or less, with excursions not to 
exceed 2.5 percent under the following conditions: (1) at 55 [deg]F 
(4 [deg]F), 1 atmosphere (0.5 percent), and 50 
percent (0.5 percent) relative humidity; (2) at 55 [deg]F 
(4 [deg]F), 1 atmosphere (0.5 percent), and 100 
percent (0.5 percent) relative humidity; (3) at 90[deg] F 
(4 [deg]F), 1 atmosphere (0.5 percent), and 50 
percent (0.5 percent) relative humidity; (4) at 82 [deg]F 
(4 [deg]F), 1 atmosphere (0.5 percent), and 100 
percent (0.5 percent) relative humidity.
    The Agency is proposing testing and evaluating of the 
CO2 removal component to assure that the concentration not 
exceed a 1.0 percent time-weighted average over the rated duration of 
the refuge alternative with excursions not to exceed 2.5 percent. The 
provisions in proposed paragraph (f) are consistent with NIOSH's 
recommendation.
    MSHA recognizes that some CO2 scrubbing components may 
not perform as well as others and that the most commonly used 
CO2 scrubbing chemicals performed their function within an 
acceptable range of the conditions found in underground mines. The 
testing procedure that would be required under proposed paragraphs 
(f)(1) through (4) are representative of extreme conditions that 
CO2 scrubbing components may be exposed to in different 
underground mines. The increased temperature and humidity ranges 
between these provisions reflect increases that would result from 
occupancy of a refuge alternative, although MSHA assumes that some body 
heat and moisture generation will be dissipated by contact with the 
refuge alternative or mine roof, ribs, and floor.
    Therefore, it is important to evaluate these CO2 
scrubbing components and determine the differences in levels of 
effectiveness with currently available components. This will enable 
mine operators to make more informed choices in selecting scrubbing 
components to be used in their particular mining operation.
    Paragraph (g) would require that respirators or breathing apparatus 
used with a breathable air component (1) be NIOSH-approved with a means 
of flow and pressure regulation; (2) be equipped with fittings that 
connect only to a breathable air compressed line; (3) allow for 
communication, and the provision of food, and water while preventing 
the entry of any outside atmosphere; and (4) be capable of being worn 
for up to 96 hours. The proposed rule addresses the need to have 
provisions to assure the safe use of respirators or breathing 
apparatus.
    Paragraph (g)(1) would require that respirators or breathing 
apparatus used for a breathable air component have a NIOSH approval 
with a means of flow and pressure regulation.
    Paragraph (g)(2) would require that respirators or breathing 
apparatus be equipped with fittings that connect only to a breathable 
air compressed line. This provision would prevent respirators from 
being connected to piping that is not designed for breathing apparatus 
or to gas sources that are not capable of sustaining life. Compressed 
air regulating valves and supply hoses are generally shipped with 
quick-connect industrial interchange safety fittings/couplings that 
prevent accidental separation of the hoses. The proposed rule would 
require that these fittings be

[[Page 34152]]

incompatible with outlets for non-respirable air or other gas systems 
so that asphyxiating substances are not introduced into breathing air 
lines. This provision is also comparable to the Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration respiratory protection standard 29 CFR 
1910.134(i)(8), which states that--

[t]he employer shall ensure that breathing air couplings are 
incompatible with outlets for nonrespirable worksite air or other 
gas systems. No asphyxiating substance shall be introduced into 
breathing air lines.

    Paragraph (g)(3) would require that respirators or breathing 
apparatus used with breathable air components allow for communication, 
and the provision of food and water while at the same time preventing 
the entry of any outside atmosphere. MSHA is proposing this requirement 
because communications with and between persons in refuge alternatives 
to convey and share information are vital to mine rescue efforts. The 
knowledge of where persons are in refuge alternatives, their condition 
and the conditions in the mine may make the difference between life and 
death in a post-accident crisis. In addition, being able to consume 
food and water is critical for the 96-hour confinement. MSHA believes 
that the proposed requirements could be met with full-faced respirators 
or breathing apparatus that have ports for the use of liquids, such as 
those used by commercial divers.
    Paragraph (g)(4) would require that respirators or breathing 
apparatus used with breathable air components be capable of being worn 
for up to 96 hours. The refuge alternative standard would require that 
breathable air be provided in the refuge alternative at all times. 
Among the concerns addressed by this provision are that if respirators 
or apparatus are required to be worn for extended periods of time, the 
respirators or breathing apparatus would need to be of such a type or 
configuration that it would not become dislodged when sleeping or when 
activities are performed.
    Paragraph (h) would require that an applicant prepare and submit a 
risk analysis to assure that the breathable air component will not 
cause an ignition. The proposed provision requires that an analysis be 
conducted to evaluate the potential fire and ignition risks of the 
equipment and components.
    Paragraph (h)(1) would require that the risk analysis specifically 
address oxygen fire hazards and fire hazards from chemicals used for 
removal of carbon dioxide. This provision addresses MSHA's specific 
concern that the use of oxygen presents inherent potential fire 
hazards. The provision also focuses on assuring that fire hazards from 
chemicals used for removal of carbon dioxide are addressed by 
manufacturers of refuge alternative components.
    Paragraph (h)(2) would require that the risk analysis identify the 
means used to prevent any ignition source. This provision addresses the 
need to assure that refuge alternative manufacturers analyze inherent 
potential fire hazards and, if any potential exists, that the 
mitigation plan includes the means to prevent ignition of breathable 
air component equipment or materials.
    Paragraph (i) would require that the breathable air component shall 
include a fire extinguisher that (1) is compatible with the chemicals 
used for removal of carbon dioxide; and (2) uses a non-toxic 
extinguishing agent that does not produce a hazardous by-product when 
heated or activated. This paragraph addresses the need to assure that 
refuge alternative manufacturers analyze inherent potential fire 
hazards and develop means to prevent the ignition of breathable air 
component equipment or materials. The proposed requirements in 
paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) would help assure that the fire extinguisher 
used in a refuge alternative or component does not contribute to a 
secondary fire or explosion. The provisions would assist MSHA in 
determining that materials used in the fire extinguisher are safe for 
use in an underground mine and do not give off harmful gases when 
exposed to heat.
Section 7.507 Air-Monitoring Components
    Proposed Sec.  7.507(a) would include requirements for an air-
monitoring component that provides persons inside the refuge 
alternative with the ability to determine the concentrations of carbon 
dioxide, carbon monoxide, oxygen, and methane, inside and outside the 
structure, including the airlock. This proposal would assure that 
breathable air is properly monitored and that air-monitoring equipment 
is properly inspected, tested, maintained, and stored so that it is 
fully charged and available for immediate use.
    The monitoring of these gases is critical to the survival of miners 
occupying a refuge alternative. The proposal includes the recommended 
values provided in the NIOSH report for oxygen, carbon monoxide, and 
carbon dioxide. NIOSH recommended values and gas concentration ranges 
that would assure that the quality of breathable air is maintained. The 
ability to monitor the atmosphere outside the refuge alternative would 
assist miners inside the refuge alternative in making crucial decisions 
in the event of a mine emergency. Additionally, methane would be 
monitored to negate the possibility of oxygen deficiency or the 
potential for explosion.
    Paragraph (b) would require that refuge alternatives designed for 
use in mines with a history of harmful gases, other than carbon 
monoxide, carbon dioxide, and methane be equipped to measure those 
harmful gas concentrations. Some mines have a history of liberating 
harmful gases such as hydrogen sulfide, volatile hydrocarbons, or 
sulfur dioxide. Miners would need to be prepared for potential 
liberating of these harmful gases and have appropriate monitoring 
equipment readily available.
    Paragraph (c) would require that the air-monitoring component be 
inspected or tested and the test results are included in the 
application. This provision will assure that all types of monitors or 
detectors that are included in the refuge alternative will be tested 
for the conditions for which they are intended. Performance testing 
will assure the components will operate for which the air monitoring is 
intended as well as meet the intrinsic safety requirements. 
Additionally, visual inspection, calibration, and performance test 
reports will need to be included in the application to verify 
performance.
    Paragraph (d) would require that all air-monitoring components be 
approved as permissible by MSHA and the MSHA approval number be 
specified in the application. MSHA will only accept MSHA approved 
permissible components to assure an explosion hazard does not exist in 
an explosive atmosphere and the components will serve the purpose for 
which they are intended. MSHA would allow third party testing of the 
components for air monitoring. Approval information will assure the 
components are performance-tested for safe usage in the refuge 
alternative.
    Paragraph (e) would require that air-monitoring components meet the 
following: (1) The total measurement error, including the cross-
sensitivity to other gases, shall not exceed 10 percent of 
the reading, except as specified in the approval, and (2) the 
measurement error limits not exceed after startup, after 8 hours of 
continuous operation, after 96 hours of storage, and after exposure to 
atmospheres with a carbon monoxide concentration of 999 ppm (full 
scale), a carbon dioxide concentration of 3 percent, and full-scale 
concentrations of other gases.

[[Page 34153]]

    Paragraph (e)(1) would assure that the instruments are tested to 
specific ranges. MSHA has referenced gas analyzer specifications from 
30 CFR part 7 Diesel Engine approvals detailed in Sec.  7.86(b)(10), 
which specifies that the gas analyzer error including cross-sensitivity 
to other gases is 5%. MSHA recommends using gas analyzers that account 
for cross sensitivity, such as sensitivity to hydrogen or hydrocarbons 
which would result in false indication of actual carbon monoxide, and 
adjust readings accordingly.
    The 5% error specification in Sec.  7.86(b)(10) refers 
to the instrument error specification. The 10% total 
measurement error specification above refers to the combined effects of 
environment and accessories on the measurement itself under normal 
conditions, and was arrived at through uncertainty evaluation of gas 
measurement instruments used at MSHA's Approval and Certification 
Center. Measurements taken when environmental conditions are not within 
the instruments' specified acceptable limits, or when the instrument is 
in need of calibration, can result in the measurement value falling 
outside the 10% limit. Measurements that fall outside of 
the 10% limit are not in compliance. The applicant needs to 
determine what environmental or calibration issues exist and resolve 
them to keep the combined instrument and measurement error within 
10%.
    Paragraph (e)(2) would require testing to demonstrate that the gas 
monitors or detectors will afford miners the capability to determine 
accurate gas concentrations throughout the duration of refuge occupancy 
and at different parameters such as startup, after 8 hours of 
continuous operation, during storage when continuously exposed to the 
maximum recommended gas concentrations, and at other concentrations 
much higher than the recommended maximum values. This requirement takes 
into account the effects high gas concentration levels may have on 
these measurements over extended periods of time. A consensus standard 
for instruments, ANSI/ISA-92.02.01, Part I-1998 Performance 
Requirements for Carbon Monoxide Detection Instruments (50-1000 ppm 
full scale), specifies carbon monoxide instrument range limits of 1000 
ppm, 2000 ppm overload, and the standard specifies these instruments be 
able to withstand a carbon monoxide shock loading of 4000 ppm.
    Paragraph (e)(3) would require that calibration gas values be 
traceable to the National Institute for Standards and Testing (NIST) 
``Standard Reference Materials'' (SRMs). This procedure will assure 
proper calibration of the air-monitoring equipment. These standards are 
recognized and accepted by industry. This provision is based upon 
existing Sec.  7.86(b)(16), which references NIST SRMs.
    Paragraph (e)(4) would require that the analytical accuracy of the 
calibration gas values be within 2.0 percent of NIST gas standards. 
This provision is based upon existing Sec.  7.86(b)(16), which also 
references analytical accuracy of calibration gases within 2 percent of 
NIST gas standards.
    Paragraph (e)(5) would require that the analytical accuracy of the 
span gas values be within 2.0 percent of NIST gas standards. This 
provision is based upon existing Sec.  7.86(b)(17) which also 
references analytical accuracy of span gases within 2 percent of NIST 
gas standards.
    Paragraph (e)(6) would require the detectors be capable of being 
kept fully charged and ready for immediate use. MSHA needs to assure 
that the detectors are reliable and ready to use for maintaining 
persons as necessary over the 96-hour period.
Section 7.508 Harmful Gas Removal Components
    This section addresses removing harmful gases to assure that 
breathable air is maintained for persons occupying refuge alternatives 
during the 96-hour period.
    Paragraph (a)(1) would require purging or other effective methods 
be provided for the airlock to dilute the carbon monoxide concentration 
to 25 ppm or less and the methane concentration to 1.5 percent or less 
as persons enter, within 20 minutes of miners activating the refuge 
alternative. The NIOSH recommended value of maximum concentration of 
carbon monoxide is 25 ppm. This provision is intended to address 
evacuating contaminated air by forcing the contaminated air out of the 
refuge alternative environment. Airlocks are intended to speed up the 
process of ingress and egress, because this is a smaller volume as 
compared to the interior space to purge. MSHA believes that following 
the miners' attempt to escape and time required for constructing and 
activating the refuge alternative, the SCSRs would allow 20 minutes for 
purging the airlock to establish a breathable air atmosphere.
    In addition, purge air should be provided from compressed air 
cylinders. The allowable carbon monoxide contamination level is the 
NIOSH recommended value contained in the NIOSH report. The methane 
concentration action level in 30 CFR 75.323(b)(2)(i) of less than 1.5 
percent is the limit established for persons to be allowed to occupy an 
area.
    Paragraph (a)(2) would require that chemical scrubbing or other 
effective methods be provided to maintain the average carbon dioxide 
concentration in the occupied structure at 1.0 percent or less with 
excursions not to exceed 2.5 percent. The provision addresses the 
harmful effects of carbon dioxide, a natural asphyxiant produced 
through human respiration. To prevent the accumulation of harmful 
concentrations of carbon dioxide, scrubbing systems have been developed 
to chemically absorb the carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide scrubbing 
systems are described as active or passive. Passive systems rely solely 
on natural air currents for the air to react with the chemical bed. 
Passive systems chemicals are usually packaged in curtains that are 
suspended in the refuge chamber environment. Active systems were 
designed to increase efficiency of CO2 scrubbing systems. 
This is accomplished by forcing the air through the chemical bed by 
fans or compressed air. The recommended average carbon dioxide 
concentration came from the NIOSH report.
    Paragraph (b)(1) would require that chemicals used in harmful gas 
removal be contained such that when stored or used they cannot come in 
contact with persons. Because these harmful gas removal chemicals are 
caustic, they would need to be contained. One way of packaging these 
chemicals is in curtains or cartridges that are isolated so that 
contact with or exposure to the chemicals is prevented. MSHA does not 
condone the use of uncontained materials because of the caustic nature 
of these materials. Chemicals must be activated without compromising 
the packaging materials and exposing miners to chemical hazards.
    Paragraph (b)(2) would require that each chemical used for removal 
of harmful gas be provided together with all materials, parts, or 
equipment necessary for its use. This requirement is proposed to 
expedite activation of the scrubbing system to reduce start-up time and 
make the system easy to use for the miner. The intent is to make the 
system as uncomplicated as possible, and to reduce harmful gases as 
soon as possible while ensuring everything necessary is provided. The 
harmful gas removal system should be designed on a per-miner 
incremental basis to make the system easily understood by miners.
    Paragraph (b)(3) would require that each chemical used for removal 
of harmful gas be stored in an approved

[[Page 34154]]

container that is conspicuously marked with the manufacturer's 
instructions for disposal of used chemicals. The intent of this 
provision is to provide for appropriate containment during shipping and 
pre-activation storage. Approved containers would be considered those 
appropriate for pre-activation transport and storage in the mine 
environment as determined by generally accepted chemical industry 
practice. Disposal instructions are also to be provided to assure 
miners are not exposed or otherwise injured while handling chemicals. 
Activation instructions should also be provided on the container.
    Paragraph (c) would require that each harmful gas removal component 
be inspected or tested to determine its ability to remove harmful 
gases. The functionality and efficiency of the gas removal components 
need to be verified.
    Paragraph (c)(1) would require that the component be tested in a 
refuge alternative structure that is representative of the 
configuration and maximum volume from which the component is designed 
to remove harmful gases. The intent is to obtain data that is directly 
representative of how the components will perform in actual use. Data 
from small-scale tests or prototype testing would require 
interpretation along with making assumptions which introduces the 
potential for the measured performance not being representative of 
full-scale performance.
    Paragraph (c)(1)(i) would require that the test include three 
sampling points located vertically along the centerlines of the length 
and width of the structure and equally spaced over the horizontal 
centerline of the height of the structure. There are to be a total of 
three sampling points equally spaced along the center length of the 
structure on the longitudinal (horizontal) centerline and located so as 
to provide an accurate representation of the gas concentration found in 
the middle of the structure as opposed to the ends, corners, top, 
sides, or bottom.
    Paragraph (c)(1)(ii) would require that the structure be sealed 
airtight. The structure is to be airtight to prevent unintended 
atmosphere contaminants from entering into the structure and altering/
interfering with the internal test atmosphere.
    Paragraph (c)(1)(iii) would require that the operating gas sampling 
instruments be placed inside the structure and continuously exposed to 
the test atmosphere.
    Paragraph (c)(1)(iv) would require that the sampling instruments 
simultaneously measure the gas concentrations at the three sampling 
points. Gas sampling instruments must operate continuously at the three 
sampling points while measuring the gaseous concentration inside of the 
structure. The intent of simultaneously sampling is to determine the 
interior atmosphere at different locations at a given point in time, to 
eliminate any sampling variability introduced by sequential sampling, 
and to determine if a homogenous atmosphere is maintained throughout 
the refuge alternative.
    Paragraph (c)(2) would require when testing the component's ability 
to remove carbon monoxide, the structure be filled with a test gas of 
either purified synthetic air or purified nitrogen that contains 400 
ppm carbon monoxide. Refuge alternatives should be configured to ensure 
the air contained therein is normally isolated from the mine atmosphere 
which would negate the need to purge a refuge after an event. However, 
the concept of an airlock to provide a transition area into a 
breathable air zone, by its very nature, would possibly become 
contaminated after an event. In recognizing this, airlocks need the 
capability to remove contaminants or otherwise operated to ensure that 
contaminated mine atmosphere is prevented from migrating through the 
airlock into the breathable air refuge. The 400 ppm was selected based 
on safety considerations (ACGIH 400 ppm CO STEL limit) while also being 
able to determine multiple gas concentration level reductions of the 
gas purification/de-contamination system for the entire ingress/egress 
process at maximum occupancy.
    Paragraph (c)(2)(i) would require that after a stable concentration 
of 400 ppm, 5 percent, carbon monoxide has been obtained 
for 5 minutes at all three sampling points, a timer be started and the 
structure shall be purged or CO otherwise removed. A uniform 
homogeneous atmosphere inside of the chamber containing a concentration 
of 400 ppm must be consistent for 5 minutes. After this is achieved, a 
timer will be started and the structure purged or CO otherwise removed 
to an acceptable concentration.
    Paragraph (c)(2)(ii) would require that carbon monoxide 
concentration readings from each of the three sampling devices be 
recorded every 2 minutes. The intent is to have enough data points to 
have a valid test.
    Paragraph (c)(2)(iii) would require that the time from the start of 
harmful gas removal until the readings of the three sampling 
instruments all indicate a carbon monoxide concentration of 25 ppm or 
less shall be recorded. The purpose for recording the time is to assure 
the time to remove the toxic gas and activate the refuge alternative is 
less than the time to deplete the life of the SCSR. All of the rated 
number of occupants need to be located safely inside the refuge 
alternative prior to depleting their SCSR air capacity.
    Paragraph (d) would allow that alternate performance tests may be 
conducted if the tests provide the same level of assurance of the 
harmful gas removal component's capability as the tests specified in 
paragraph (c) of this section. Alternate tests shall be specified in 
the approval application. The intent of this statement is as a general 
protection clause. The applicant can perform other tests to assure the 
ability of these systems to remove harmful gases if the applicant can 
demonstrate that the same degree of protection is provided as the 
refuge alternative requirements. Alternate tests may be used if they 
are submitted to MSHA for approval and there is assurance that the 
capacity to remove harmful gas is adequate.
Section 7.509 Approval Markings
    Paragraph (a) would require that each approved refuge alternative 
or component be identified by a legible, permanent approval marking 
that is securely and conspicuously attached to the component or its 
container. This requirement is necessary to assure that only approved 
materials and components are used in the refuge alternatives. The 
marking would be placed such that the marking will not be subject to 
damage or removal.
    Paragraph (b) would require that each approval marking include the 
refuge alternative's and component's MSHA approval number and 
expiration date. This requirement is necessary to assure that only 
approved materials and components are used in the refuge alternatives.
    Paragraph (c) would require that each refuge alternative structure 
provide a conspicuous means for indicating an out-of-service status, 
including the reason it is out of service. This requirement would 
assure the materials are able to be inspected and removed and replaced 
when needed.
    Paragraph (d) would require that each airlock be conspicuously 
marked with the recommended maximum number of persons that can use it 
at one time. This requirement would assure the airlock is used as 
intended to allow safe passage of persons through the airlock and to 
prevent the contamination of the interior space atmosphere.

[[Page 34155]]

Section 7.510 New Technology
    This proposed section would allow MSHA to approve a refuge 
alternative or a component that incorporates new knowledge or 
technology, if the applicant demonstrates that the refuge alternative 
or component provides no less protection than those meeting the 
requirements of this subpart. Recent innovative uses of commercially 
available technology to enhance mine safety have shown that, while the 
drawbacks are significant, credible scientific research supports the 
use of refuge alternatives. Refuge alternatives are technologically 
feasible in that they use commercially available technology and they 
can reasonably be integrated into mining operations considering 
specific physical characteristics of a mine. MSHA recognizes that using 
the refuge alternatives in low coal mines could be problematic. The 
Agency further recognizes that certain types of refuge alternatives may 
not be feasible in low coal mines. MSHA solicits comment from the 
public on the use of refuge alternatives in low coal mines. Please be 
specific in your response, including alternatives, rationale, safety 
benefits to miners, technological and economic feasibility, and data to 
support your comment.

B. Part 75 Safety Standards

Section 75.221 Roof Control Plan Information
    Paragraph Sec.  75.221(a)(12) would require that the operator 
describe the roof and rib support necessary for the refuge alternative 
in the roof control plan. Roof and rib falls could damage a refuge 
alternative and compromise its integrity. Humidity resulting from 
fires, vibrations, shock, and thermal effects are often associated with 
catastrophic events that may require the use of additional roof support 
for areas housing refuge alternatives. Due to the vital role of refuge 
alternatives in the event of an emergency, mine operators must plan for 
their location and assure that they are adequately protected from 
possible roof and rib falls. MSHA encourages the mine operator to 
prepare locations for refuge alternatives in advance. The additional 
steps to protect these units from roof and rib falls must be described 
in the roof control plan.
Section 75.313 Main Mine Fan Stoppage With Persons Underground
    Paragraph 75.313(f) would require the use of intrinsically safe 
electrical components in a refuge alternative during fan stoppages 
underground. Mine explosions, mine fires, and coal bumps and bounces 
may compromise the mine ventilation system resulting in a mine fan 
stoppage. A refuge alternative that is normally located in intake air 
may be exposed to a potentially explosive mixture of methane in the 
aftermath of a mine emergency. Like existing Sec.  75.313(e), only 
intrinsically safe electrical components may be operated in a refuge 
alternative during fan stoppages.
Section 75.360 Preshift Examination
    Paragraph 75.360(d) would require the person conducting the 
preshift examination to check the refuge alternative for damage, the 
integrity of the tamper-evident seal and the mechanisms required to 
activate the refuge alternative, and the ready availability of 
compressed oxygen and air. Refuge alternatives may be damaged by 
persons, mining equipment, or the mine environment. Compressed gas 
storage systems may leak. Due to the critical nature of refuge 
alternatives, each refuge alternative must be examined as part of the 
preshift examination. Visible damage to the refuge alternative and 
damage to the tamper-evident seal would be checked during the preshift 
examination. The preshift examination would reveal loss of compressed 
gas pressures, electrical charge, or communications system.
    MSHA requests specific comments on the visual damage that would be 
revealed during the preshift examinations. The Agency is concerned with 
the feasibility and practicality of visually checking the status of 
refuge alternatives without having to enter the structure or break the 
tamper-evident seal. Please be specific in your response, regarding 
methods or alternatives, rationale, safety benefits to miners, 
technological and economic feasibility, and data to support your 
comment.
Section 75.372 Mine Ventilation Map
    Paragraph Sec.  75.372(b)(11) would require that each refuge 
alternative be shown on the mine ventilation map. Showing the location 
of the refuge alternatives in relationship to the mine ventilation 
system facilitates an evaluation of the effectiveness of a potential 
refuge alternative location. The location of the refuge alternative in 
relationship to potential hazards such as seals and oil and gas wells 
will be evaluated during the ventilation map review. The mine 
ventilation map is often referenced during mine rescue efforts. 
Plotting refuge alternatives on the ventilation map could aid decisions 
during rescue operations.
Section 75.1200 Mine Map
    Paragraph Sec.  75.1200(g) would require that the mine map show the 
locations of refuge alternatives. The existing Sec.  75.1200 mine map 
forms the basis for decisions made during mine rescue efforts. Plotting 
refuge alternatives on the mine map allows the mine rescue planners to 
consider where miners may be sheltered after a mine emergency. This 
information will be critical to mine rescue efforts in locating trapped 
personnel.
Section 75.1202-1 Temporary Notations, Revisions, and Supplements
    Paragraph Sec.  75.1202-1(b)(4) would require that refuge 
alternatives that are moved be shown on the mine map with temporary 
notations. During an emergency, mine maps form the basis for mine 
rescue efforts. Locations of refuge alternatives are critical to 
decisions made in rescue efforts and must be kept current on the mine 
map.
Section 75.1500 Emergency Shelters
    MSHA proposes to remove and reserve this section and delete the 
existing language of Sec.  75.1500. This section would be replaced with 
specific requirements for refuge alternatives in existing Sec. Sec.  
75.1501, 75.1502, 75.1504, and 75.1505 and new Sec. Sec.  75.1506, 
75.1507, and 75.1508.
Section 75.1501 Emergency Evacuations
    Paragraph Sec.  75.1501(a)(1) would require that the responsible 
person know the locations of refuge alternatives. Under the proposal, 
the designated responsible person must have current knowledge of the 
locations, types, and capacities of refuge alternatives to make 
informed mine evacuation decisions in the event of an emergency.
Section 75.1502 Mine Emergency Evacuation and Firefighting Program of 
Instruction
    Paragraph Sec.  75.1502(c)(3) would be a new provision and require 
that instruction in the activation and use of refuge alternatives be 
added to the mine emergency evacuation program of instruction. This 
proposal would assure that miners are able to effectively activate and 
use refuge alternatives in case of an emergency. Existing Sec.  
75.1502(c)(3) would be redesignated as paragraph (c)(4). Paragraph 
(c)(4)(vi) would be new and require that the program of instruction 
include a scenario for using refuge alternatives. Although MSHA expects 
that miners would occupy refuge alternatives only if no other options 
are available, they need

[[Page 34156]]

to be aware of the circumstances that may require this difficult 
decision.
    Existing Sec.  75.1502(c)(7) would be redesignated as paragraph 
(c)(8) and would require that the program of instruction include the 
locations of refuge alternatives. The locations of refuge alternatives 
may be critical for miners who are involved in mine emergencies.
    Paragraph Sec.  75.1502(c)(10) would be new and require a summary 
of the procedures related to constructing and activating refuge 
alternatives. This summary information would be necessary for miners 
during training. The summary would assure that all critical steps of 
constructing and activating the refuge alternative are reviewed in 
training.
    Paragraph Sec.  75.1502(c)(11) would be new and require a summary 
of the procedures related to refuge alternative use. This summary 
information would be necessary for the miners to review during 
training. The summary would assure that all critical steps of using the 
refuge alternative are reviewed in training.
Section 75.1504 Mine Emergency Evacuation Training and Drills
    The best refuge technology, equipment and emergency supplies are of 
little benefit if they are misused or not used at all. In its report, 
NIOSH stated that--

    The potential of refuge alternatives to save lives will only be 
realized to the extent that mine operators develop comprehensive 
escape and rescue plans, which incorporate refuge alternatives.

    Emergencies can result in miner disorientation and panic. Using 
sound judgment in a given emergency can be critical for survival. MSHA 
and NIOSH have found that training is necessary to instill the 
discipline, confidence, and skills necessary to survive a mine 
emergency. This proposal would improve miner training and help assure 
that underground coal miners know when to use a refuge alternative and 
know how to use the various components to sustain life until rescued. 
During each quarterly drill, miners would be required to locate the 
refuge alternatives and review the activation and use of the refuge 
alternative for the area where the miners normally work and travel 
during each quarterly drill. Refuge alternatives expectations training 
would emphasize that miners first try to evacuate the mine and that 
refuge alternatives are a haven of last resort when escape is 
impossible.
    MSHA has identified problems related to skill degradation in 
emergency evacuations of mines. In a series of studies from 1990 
through 1993, the U.S. Bureau of Mines, University of Kentucky, and 
MSHA researchers measured skills degradation. In one study, the 
proficiency rates dropped about 80 percent in follow-up evaluations 
conducted about 90 days after training. MSHA recognizes that with any 
non-routine task, such as constructing, activating, and using a refuge 
alternative, knowledge and skill diminish rapidly. In another study \4\ 
researchers concluded that ``companies should adopt a hands-on training 
protocol.'' The proposed rule reflects MSHA's conviction that frequent 
and effective refuge alternative training would be necessary to assure 
miner proficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The U.S. Bureau of Mines (Vaught et al., 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Sec.  75.1504(b)(3)(ii) and (4)(ii) would require that in 
quarterly training and drills, miners locate refuge alternatives. This 
knowledge would be critical to miners in a mine emergency.
    Paragraph Sec.  75.1504(b)(6) would require a review of the 
checklist for constructing and activating the refuge alternatives and 
components. MSHA proposes that quarterly training and drills includes 
this training as recognition that with any non-routine task, such as 
activating and using a refuge alternative, knowledge and skill diminish 
rapidly.
    Miners need to be aware of how to construct and activate a refuge 
alternative safely. The information in the proposed checklist would be 
used in the training and should include all of the step-by-step 
procedures easily understood by the miners to perform these tasks. For 
easy availability, mine operators should consider laminated cards or 
other equally durable forms of the checklist for use by miners.
    Paragraph Sec.  75.1504(b)(7) would require a review of the 
procedures related to use of refuge alternatives and components. Miners 
need to be aware of how to use a refuge alternative safely in the event 
of an emergency. MSHA recognizes that manufacturers generally provide 
information on the safe use of their products. This information would 
be used in training and should include the step-by-step procedures 
necessary to use refuge alternatives and should be easily understood by 
the miners. This information will be critical for miners who need to 
spend a sustained period in a refuge alternative.
    MSHA's Office of Educational Policy and Development will assist 
mine operators with job task analysis and training materials such as 
videos to improve the quality and effectiveness of programs of 
instruction. NIOSH is developing a refuge alternative training program 
that is expected to be available by the end of 2008. MSHA plans to 
include a delayed effective date in the final rule to allow mine 
operators to develop Emergency Response Plans and training plans and 
submit them to MSHA.
    Proposed Sec.  75.1504(c)(3) would require annual expectations 
training in construction, where applicable, activation, and use of 
refuge alternatives and components. Under the existing standard, each 
miner must participate in expectations training over the course of each 
year. This training includes donning and transferring self-contained 
self-rescuers (SCSRs) in smoke, simulated smoke, or an equivalent 
environment. The training also requires breathing through a realistic 
SCSR training unit that provides the sensation of SCSR airflow 
resistance and heat.
    Under the proposal, miners would have to be trained in 
construction, where applicable, activation, and use of refuge 
alternatives similar to those in use at the mine, including activation 
and operation of component systems; and instruction on when to use 
refuge alternatives during a mine emergency. Refuge alternatives 
expectations training would emphasize that miners first try to evacuate 
the mine and that refuge alternatives are a haven of last resort when 
escape is impossible. The proposed expectations training would require 
an annual realistic experience of constructing where applicable, 
activating, and using a refuge alternative in a simulated emergency 
situation. The proposed refuge alternative expectations training could 
be combined with the existing expectations training.
    Expectations training will be essential to reduce the level of 
panic and anxiety associated with the use of refuge alternatives. NIOSH 
supports expectations training to reduce the level of panic and anxiety 
associated with the use of refuge alternatives.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ NIOSH, Research Report on Refuge Alternatives for 
Underground Coal Mines (2007), p. 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Properly constructing and activating a refuge alternative can be a 
relatively complex procedure that must be done correctly to establish a 
breathable air environment in a smoke-filled mine. The operation of 
most refuge alternatives requires periodic monitoring and adjustments 
to the gases to assure a breathable atmosphere. Failure to correctly 
perform these tasks may imperil the lives of miners within the refuge 
alternative. MSHA envisions the use of a modified version of the

[[Page 34157]]

refuge alternative in the mine for this training purpose.
    The miners would have to construct the refuge alternative, if 
applicable, activate the refuge alternative, purge the atmosphere, and 
turn on the breathable air and maintain a viable atmosphere. Although 
MSHA does not specify a minimum time for this annual training exercise, 
the duration should be sufficient to allow miners to perform all of the 
necessary tasks and give them a realistic experience of using the 
refuge alternative. The Agency would require that this training expose 
the miners to the expected heat and humidity conditions in the refuge 
alternative. MSHA does not expect that this training would include the 
actual use of oxygen and harmful gas removal components; these actions 
may be performed with compressed air and simulated removal components. 
The training must also emphasize that, in the event of an emergency, 
miners should first try to evacuate the mine and that refuge 
alternatives are the option of last resort when escape is impossible.
    MSHA solicits comment from the public on the Agency's proposed 
approach to expectations training. The Agency is interested in comment 
on its proposed strategy and the proposed elements of training. Please 
be specific in your response, including alternatives, rationale, safety 
benefits to miners, technological and economic feasibility, and data to 
support your comment.
    Proposed Sec.  75.1504(c)(4), redesignated from existing Sec.  
75.1504(c)(3), would require that a miner participate in expectations 
training within one quarter of being employed at the mine. MSHA would 
expect that any new miner would be given the expectations training 
within this timeframe. This could be accomplished during new miner or 
newly employed miner training.
Section 75.1505 Escapeway Maps
    Proposed Sec.  75.1505(a)(3) would require that the escapeway map 
be posted or readily accessible at each refuge alternative. The 
location of refuge alternatives relative to the escapeway may be vital 
to the survival of miners during mine emergencies. Escapeway maps form 
the basis for decisions made during mine evacuation. Having escapeway 
maps on hand for miners would facilitate important decisionmaking.
    Proposed Sec.  75.1505(b) would require that escapeway maps include 
the locations of refuge alternatives, and that any change be shown on 
the map. Escapeway maps form the basis for mine rescue efforts. 
Locations of refuge alternatives are critical to decisions made during 
rescue efforts and must be kept current on the escapeway map.
Section 75.1506 Refuge Alternatives
    This section would require that mine operators provide refuge 
alternatives to accommodate all persons working underground and specify 
criteria for the use and maintenance of refuge alternatives. MSHA 
believes that refuge alternatives will provide a refuge of last resort 
for miners unable to evacuate the mine during an emergency. By 
providing the essential elements of survival (breathable air, water, 
food, communications, etc.) the likelihood of miners surviving an 
inhospitable post-emergency environment would be increased. MSHA 
realizes that a flexible approach to providing refuge alternatives is 
necessary due to the wide range of mining conditions (seam height, 
pitch, mining method, and mine layout) that exist in underground coal 
mines. To address these widely-varying conditions, MSHA has taken a 
performance-based approach to refuge alternatives. For example, the 
refuge alternative has to provide for essential needs of occupants, but 
the proposal does not require specific methods, equipment, or devices.
    Paragraph (a) would require each operator to provide refuge 
alternatives with sufficient capacity to accommodate all persons 
working underground. MSHA believes that escape to the surface is more 
protective than using a refuge alternative. However, when escape is 
impossible, a refuge alternative must be available for all persons 
underground. MSHA recognizes that the highest concentration of miners 
is near a working section. Toward this end, refuge alternatives would 
need to be located to accommodate the miners at or near a working 
section. Refuge alternatives would also be required for miners working 
in outby locations. The proposed rule would not require refuge 
alternatives for miners who can reach a surface escape facility within 
30 minutes. Under the proposal, mines in which all miners would be 
within 30 minutes of the surface or a surface escape facility would not 
have to have a refuge alternative.
    Paragraph (a)(1) would require at least 15 square feet of usable 
floor space and at least 60 cubic feet of usable volume per person. 
This proposed requirement of interior floor space and volume is 
necessary to provide adequate room for miners during any period of time 
confined in the refuge alternative. MSHA is interested in practical 
floor space and volume requirements for mining operations. The proposed 
requirements are intended to mean that the miner would have this space 
available to them without being affected by any other factors, e.g., 
stored items. MSHA intends that space requirements would not include 
airlock space. The NIOSH report recommended key design values of 15 
square feet of floor space and 85 cubic feet volume per miner. However, 
in its report, NIOSH stated that these recommendations were not to be 
considered absolute. MSHA recognizes that achieving the volume per 
miner in refuge alternatives for low coal mines could be problematic.
    To lie down, miners would require a certain length and width. For 
example, 15 square feet would be provided by a space 6 feet long and 
2.5 feet wide. This space would have to be 4 feet high, which would 
give each miner 60 cubic feet of volume. These dimensions would serve 
as a minimum for the miner during the periods of confinement. In lower 
mining heights, the 60 cubic feet of volume may need to be gained by 
increasing the floor space. For example, 60 cubic feet of volume in a 
refuge alternative 2.5 feet high would require 24 square feet of floor 
space, which could be provided by a space 6 feet long and 4 feet wide.
    MSHA solicits comment from the public on these proposed values for 
floor space and volume, particularly in low mining heights. Please be 
specific in your response, including alternatives, rationale, safety 
benefits to miners, technological and economic feasibility, and data to 
support your comment.
    Miners would need to have additional space to perform duties such 
as attending to the harmful gas removal components, performing gas 
tests or attending to basic needs--drinking, eating, and using the 
sanitation facilities--and providing for injured miners. Curtains 
suspended as part of a passive system to remove carbon dioxide should 
be considered when determining volume.
    Another important factor in the volume design is the need to 
control the apparent temperature in the interior space of the refuge 
alternative. Larger volumes are more effective at dissipating heat 
because of increased surface area.
    Paragraph (a)(2) would require that refuge alternatives for working 
sections accommodate the maximum number of persons that can be expected 
on or near the section at any time. The refuge alternatives for the 
working sections would need to include space to accommodate all persons 
working near the section. It should accommodate all miners that join 
those working at the section during a shift change. For example if a 
mine has a practice of ``hot

[[Page 34158]]

seat'' change-out of crews at the face, the refuge alternative would 
need to accommodate both crews; any other persons who would routinely 
work near the section, such as managers, surveyors, vendors, and state 
and Federal inspectors. Mines that have just begun development in which 
the working section is within 30 minutes travel time (walking or 
crawling) from a portal or surface escape facility would not be 
required to have a refuge alternative.
    Paragraph (a)(3) would require that refuge alternatives for outby 
areas accommodate persons assigned to work in the outby area. The 
proposed rule would not require that outby refuge alternatives be able 
to accommodate all persons working inby its location. Refuge 
alternatives are used to shelter in-place only when evacuation is not 
feasible. Under the proposal, outby refuge alternatives would have to 
accommodate supply persons, locomotive operators, examiners, state and 
Federal inspectors, pumpers, maintenance persons, belt persons, and 
other persons who may be working in the outby areas. A refuge 
alternative must be sufficient to maintain the miners who can 
reasonably be expected to use it.
    MSHA solicits comment from the public on the Agency's proposed 
approach to refuge alternative capacity. Please be specific in your 
response, including alternatives, rationale, safety benefits to miners, 
technological and economic feasibility, and data to support your 
comment.
    Paragraph (b) addresses proposed locations for placement of refuge 
alternatives. Refuge alternatives would have to be near locations where 
miners are typically stationed. MSHA's experience shows that the 
highest concentration of miners underground will be at the working 
section, therefore, a refuge alternative capable of accommodating these 
miners must be positioned close to the working section.
    Paragraph (b)(1) would require that refuge alternatives be located 
between 1,000 feet and 2,000 feet from the working face and from areas 
where mechanized mining equipment is being installed or removed. MSHA 
is proposing these distances to accommodate the periodic advancement of 
the working section, to recognize the potential for damage from an 
explosion, and to limit travel time from the working section to the 
refuge alternative.
    In its report, NIOSH recommended that the refuge alternative be 
located no further from the working face than the distance a miner 
could reasonably travel in 30 to 60 minutes under expected travel 
conditions. NIOSH also recommended that the refuge alternative be 
located at least 1,000 feet from the working face to limit damage from 
explosions at the working face. In its report, NIOSH recognized that 
establishing the exact location is problematic and indicated it would 
appear advantageous to place the refuge alternative as close to the 
face as possible to minimize the time and effort required for miners to 
reach it. NIOSH added that locating the refuge alternative closer to a 
possible explosion source will increase the chance it is damaged by 
overpressure or flying debris from the initial explosion. NIOSH 
analyzed past disasters as well as various probable scenarios. NIOSH 
further noted that lower seam heights, difficult bottom conditions, and 
the presence of smoke, among other factors, would affect travel times. 
NIOSH went on to say that,

[n]onetheless, the experience of studying mine explosions at NIOSH's 
Lake Lynn experimental mine suggests that refuge chambers should 
normally be located a minimum of 1000 feet from the working face and 
could be as far as 2000 feet * * *.

This NIOSH reasoning is consistent with MSHA's rationale for at least 
1,000 feet, which is based on explosion pressure.
    West Virginia requires ``An emergency shelter/chamber shall be 
maintained within one thousand (1,000) feet of the nearest working face 
in each working section.'' Illinois requires that ``Rescue chambers 
must be provided and located within 3,000 feet of each working section 
of a mine, in accordance with a plan submitted by an operator and 
approved by the Mining Board.'' The proposal would require that refuge 
alternatives be located between 1000 feet and 2000 feet from the 
working face and from locations where mechanized mining equipment is 
being installed or removed. As an alternative to the proposed 
requirement that refuge alternatives be located between 1,000 feet and 
2,000 feet from the working face and from areas where mechanized mining 
equipment is being installed or removed, MSHA is considering including 
the following alternative in the final rule. As an alternative to the 
specific requirements in the proposal for locating refuge alternatives 
in inby areas, MSHA is proposing to allow, depending on mine specific 
conditions, refuge alternatives with boreholes to be located up to 
4,000 feet from the working face. MSHA solicits comments on this 
proposed alternative to locating refuge alternatives in inby areas. 
MSHA also solicits comments on the proposed requirement that refuge 
alternatives be located between 1,000 feet and 2,000 feet from the 
working face and from areas where mechanized mining equipment is being 
installed or removed. Please be specific in your response, including 
alternatives, rationale, safety benefits to miners, technological and 
economic feasibility, and data to support your comments.
    Paragraph (b)(2) would require that refuge alternatives be spaced 
within one-hour travel distances in outby areas where persons work such 
that persons in outby areas are never more than a 30-minute travel 
distance from a refuge alternative or safe exit. Proposed paragraph 
(b)(2) further provides that the operator may request and the District 
Manager may approve a different location in the Emergency Response Plan 
(ERP). The operator's request would have to be based on an assessment 
of the risk to persons in outby areas, considering the following 
factors: Proximity to seals; proximity to potential fire or ignition 
sources; conditions in the outby areas; location of stored SCSRs; and 
proximity to the most direct, safe, and practical route to an intake 
escapeway. This approach is generally consistent with NIOSH's 
recommendations. Persons who work in outby areas may need to travel 
more than 30 minutes to reach a refuge alternative. They should be 
provided with additional SCSRs to assure that they can reach a refuge 
alternative from outby areas.
    In 2006, MSHA examined how far miners could travel during 30 
minutes for the Emergency Mine Evacuation final rule (71 FR 71430, 
December 8, 2006). Existing Sec.  75.1714-4(c)(2) provides two methods 
for determining the 30-minute spacing of SCSR storage locations in 
escapeways. The first method, in existing Sec.  75.1714-4(c)(2)(i), 
requires the mine operator to calculate the spacing based on a sample 
of typical miners walking a selected length of each escapeway. A sample 
of typical miners is a cross-section of the population of all miners 
who would have to evacuate the mine and use the SCSRs stored in the 
escapeways. In general, operators using this option must use a sample 
that includes miners of various ages, weights, levels of physical 
fitness, and smoking habits; and a selected portion of the escapeway 
that reflects entry height, slope, and underfoot conditions 
representative of the entire escapeway.
    The second method, in existing Sec.  75.1714-4(c)(2)(ii), requires 
a mine operator to use a table that specifies maximum SCSR storage 
location

[[Page 34159]]

spacing based on average entry height. This table is based on 
statistical data collected from the 1997 MSHA-NIOSH study.\6\ The mine 
operator may use the SCSR storage location spacing specified in the 
following table, except for escapeways with uphill grades over 5 
percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ MSHA-NIOSH study, ``The Oxygen Cost of a Mine Escape'' 
(Kovac, Kravitz, and Rehak, 1997).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Maximum distance
                                                         between SCSR
                Average entry height                   storage locations
                                                           (in feet)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<40 in. (Crawl).....................................               2,200
>40-<50 in. (Duck Walk).............................               3,300
>50-<65 in. (Walk Head Bent)........................               4,400
>65 in. (Walk Erect)................................               5,700
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For spacing refuge alternatives in outby areas, the mine operator 
may choose either of the above methods.
    MSHA solicits comment from the public on the Agency's proposed 
approach to locating refuge alternatives in outby areas, including the 
minimum and maximum distances. Please be specific in your response, 
including alternatives, rationale, safety benefits to miners, 
technological and economic feasibility, and data to support your 
comment.
    Paragraph (c) would require that roof and rib support for the 
refuge alternative locations be specified in the mine's roof control 
plan. The proposed provision addresses hazards from falling material, 
which may compromise the integrity of the refuge alternative. MSHA 
understands that no currently available refuge alternatives can 
withstand significant roof and rib falls. Humidity resulting from 
fires, vibrations, shock, and thermal effects are often associated with 
catastrophic events that may require the use of additional roof support 
for areas housing refuge alternatives.
    Due to the vital need for refuge alternatives to serve their 
intended purpose, mine operators must assure that they are adequately 
protected from roof and rib falls. MSHA encourages mine operators to 
plan and prepare locations for refuge alternatives in advance. The 
necessary steps to protect refuge alternatives from roof and rib falls 
must be described in the roof control plan. MSHA anticipates that in a 
significant number of instances, operators will need to provide 
supplemental roof and rib support to protect the refuge alternative.
    Paragraph (d) would require that the operator protect the refuge 
alternative and contents from damage during transportation and storage. 
The proposed provision is intended to assure that care will be taken to 
avoid damage to the refuge alternative at all times. Mine operators 
need to assure that miners follow all safe procedures when transporting 
a refuge alternative from one location to another. Attention needs to 
be paid to procedures such as the use of proper connections for 
transportation and devices such as tow bars, clevises and hitches. 
Refuge alternatives that have materials and components stored on 
transportable equipment, such as a skid, would require care to assure 
that they are not damaged while in storage.
    Paragraph (e) would require that a refuge alternative be removed 
from service if examination reveals damage or tampering that could 
interfere with the functioning of the refuge alternative or any 
component. Refuge alternatives may be damaged by persons, mining 
equipment or the mine environment. The proposed rule would require that 
damage must be evaluated and any indication that it interferes with the 
functioning of the refuge alternative or its components would require 
that the refuge alternative be immediately removed from service. For 
example, if examination reveals a leak in a compressed gas storage 
system, the refuge alternative would have to be removed from service 
since it would be unable to provide breathable air in an emergency.
    Paragraph (e)(1) would require the operator to withdraw all persons 
from the area serviced by the refuge alternative if the refuge 
alternative is removed from service, except those persons referred to 
in Sec.  104(c) of the Mine Act. Under the proposal, if an inoperable 
or damaged refuge alternative would not provide the protection 
intended, all persons would have to be withdrawn from the area serviced 
by the refuge alternative. This would not include persons performing 
the repairs, who should be provided with additional SCSRs to assure 
that they can reach another refuge alternative.
    Paragraph (e)(2) would require that refuge alternative components 
removed from service be replaced or be repaired in accordance with 
manufacturer's specifications. This proposed provision would require 
mine operators to maintain the refuge alternative in its approved 
condition by using approved components and repairing it in accordance 
with the manufacturer's specifications. Miners would be provided the 
protection afforded by approved refuge alternatives at all times.
    Paragraph (f) would require that, at all times, the site and area 
around the refuge alternative be kept clear of machinery, materials, 
and obstructions that could interfere with the activation or use of the 
refuge alternative. Under the proposal, refuge alternative locations 
would be easily accessible in that the areas around them would be 
maintained without obstructions to hinder access to the refuge 
alternative or to allow the refuge alternative to expand or be 
constructed to create the secure space. The proposal is necessary to 
assure the availability and survivability of the refuge alternative and 
its occupants.
    Paragraph (g) would require that each refuge alternative be 
conspicuously identified with a sign or marker. The proposal would 
provide a quick way for persons not using the lifeline system to easily 
locate the refuge alternative in an emergency.
    Paragraph (g)(1) would require that a sign or marker made of 
reflective material with the word ``Refuge'' be posted conspicuously at 
each refuge alternative. Reflective material greatly increases the 
visibility of these signs. This requirement is the same as the existing 
Sec.  75.1714-4(f), which requires reflective signs on SCSR storage 
locations.
    Paragraph (g)(2) would require that a directional sign, made of 
reflective material, be posted leading to each refuge alternative 
location. Miners may not be located in escapeways when an emergency 
occurs. For these miners, a clear system of signs may be critical 
during an emergency. Persons traveling in adjacent entries would have 
signs directing them to the refuge alternative.
Section 75.1507 Emergency Response Plan; Refuge Alternatives
    Proposed Sec.  75.1507 would require mine operators to include 
refuge alternative provisions in their Emergency Response Plan (ERP). 
Section 2 of the MINER Act requires each underground coal mine operator 
to develop and adopt an emergency response plan.
    Paragraph (a)(1) would require that the mine operator specify the 
types of refuge alternatives and components used in the mine. There are 
three types of refuge alternatives envisioned in the proposed rule. The 
proposed rule would provide flexibility in the type of refuge 
alternatives that will meet the requirements. The type of alternative 
is not specific to the seam heights.
    One type is a pre-fabricated self-contained unit. The unit is 
portable and may be used in outby applications as

[[Page 34160]]

well as near the working section. This unit has all the components 
built-in.
    A second type is constructed in place. Typically, the components of 
this unit are placed in a cross-cut or dead-end entry and stoppings are 
built to create a secure area with an isolated atmosphere. The 
components, including breathable air, removal of harmful gases, and air 
monitoring should be approved components and placed such that they are 
ready to be activated when miners reach the secure area. The stoppings 
and doors would have to be designed to resist a 15 psi overpressure. 
This refuge alternative would typically be used outby. If used near the 
working section, the stoppings could be removed to allow the components 
to be moved periodically to the next location and new stoppings would 
have to be built. A method and materials, if needed, would be necessary 
to provide breathable air for the miners while this type is being 
moved.
    A third type uses materials pre-positioned for miners to construct 
a secure area with an isolated atmosphere. The materials and components 
are portable and used to construct a secure area following an accident. 
The components, including breathable air, removal of harmful gases, and 
air monitoring should be approved components and placed such that they 
are ready to be activated when miners reach the secure area. MSHA 
envisions that mine operators using this type would have all materials 
and components in a protected self-contained unit ready to be 
activated. The proposed rule would allow for the refuge alternative 
materials and components to be placed at locations such that, following 
an accident, a secure space could be constructed with the materials and 
the breathable air component would be readily activated within the 
secure space to create an isolated atmosphere. This provision would 
require the operator to provide details of this refuge alternative in 
the ERP. This alternative would require the operator to have the 
materials situated in a safe location and to move them as necessary to 
be located near the working section as required. The provisions are 
necessary to assure the availability and survivability of the structure 
and the occupants.
    As appropriate, MSHA would approve the refuge alternatives and 
components. The pre-fabricated self-contained unit would need to be 
approved under Part 7, including structural, breathable air, air 
monitoring, and harmful gas removal components of the unit. The 
structural components of units constructed in place and with materials 
pre-positioned would be approved by the District Manager and as 
appropriate, would be inspected during the enforcement process. The 
breathable air, air monitoring, and harmful gas removal components of 
these units would be approved under Part 7.
    Paragraph (a)(2) would require that the ERP include procedures for 
maintaining the approved refuge alternatives and components. This 
proposal would assure that miners are able to maintain or correct any 
problems that may develop during storage or use of the refuge 
alternatives. Procedures should include maintenance checks and 
replacement schedules for components.
    Paragraph (a)(3) would require that the rated capacity of each 
refuge alternative, the number of persons expected to use each refuge 
alternative, and the duration of breathable air provided per person by 
the approved breathable air component of each refuge alternative be 
defined in the ERP. The ERP would need to state specifically that the 
refuge alternatives can support a specified number of persons for a 
designated length of time. This information assists MSHA in evaluating 
whether the refuge alternative or component meets the requirements for 
sustaining persons for 96 hours. MSHA solicits comments from the public 
on the 96-hour duration. Please be specific in your response, including 
alternatives, rationale, safety benefits to miners, technological and 
economic feasibility, and data to support your comment.
    Paragraph (a)(4) would require that the ERP include the method for 
providing breathable air and removing carbon dioxide with sufficient 
detail of the component's capability to provide breathable air over the 
duration stated in the approval. For example, the Agency recognizes 
that different types and combinations of equipment and methods from 
several manufacturers may be used to provide for breathable air and for 
the removal of carbon dioxide. This information assists MSHA in 
evaluating whether the breathable air meets the requirements for 
sustaining persons for 96 hours.
    Paragraph (a)(5) would require that the ERP include methods to 
provide ready backup oxygen controls and regulators. The term ``ready'' 
is meant to be pre-connected valves and regulators. Redundant oxygen 
control valves and regulators are necessary to assure that miners will 
always have breathable air available in case of component failures.
    Paragraph (a)(6) would require that the ERP include the methods for 
providing an airlock and methods for providing breathable air in the 
airlock. Refuge alternatives that require an airlock would be required 
to provide breathable air in the airlock at all times. However, when 
miners enter the airlock, it is necessary to monitor and provide purge 
air to remove any contaminants and minimize contamination inside the 
refuge alternative. Sufficient purge air is necessary to clear the 
airlock of contaminants.
    Paragraph (a)(6) would require that the ERP specify that the 
airlock is capable of maintaining breathable air, except where adequate 
positive pressure is maintained. The ERP should provide specific 
information regarding how the airlock will provide and maintain 
breathable air. Purging or other effective methods would be necessary, 
within 20 minutes of miners activating the refuge alternative, for the 
airlock to dilute the carbon monoxide concentration to 25 ppm or less 
and the methane concentration to 1.5 percent or less as persons enter. 
The proposed rule includes an exception for an airlock if the refuge 
alternative is capable of maintaining adequate positive pressure. The 
positive pressure would prevent outside air from contaminating the 
refuge alternative. The proposal would assist MSHA in evaluating 
whether the airlock would function effectively.
    Paragraph (a)(7) would require that the ERP include methods for 
providing sanitation facilities. The ERP should contain information on 
containing waste and eliminating objectionable odors. The ERP should 
also include information that the sanitation facilities are adequate 
for the specified number of persons and where it is to be located. The 
proposal would assist MSHA in determining that the refuge alternative 
includes an adequate means for containing waste.
    Paragraph (a)(8) would require that the ERP include the methods for 
harmful gas removal. Sufficient purge air is necessary to clear the 
refuge alternative of smoke and carbon monoxide unless the design of 
the refuge alternative prevents the infiltration of these combustion 
products. Information on harmful gas removal is essential for MSHA to 
determine the ability of the refuge alternative to sustain occupants 
for 96 hours. The purpose of this component is primarily to remove 
carbon dioxide exhaled by the occupants. MSHA also intends that this 
component be capable of removing toxic and irritant gases, fumes, 
mists, and dusts that may enter the refuge alternative through the 
airlock.
    Paragraph (a)(9) would require that the ERP include methods for 
monitoring

[[Page 34161]]

gas concentrations, and charging and calibrating equipment. This 
information is essential for MSHA to determine that persons inside the 
refuge alternative will be aware of the concentrations of carbon 
dioxide, carbon monoxide, methane, and oxygen inside and outside the 
structure, including the airlock. This information assists MSHA in 
evaluating whether the air-monitoring component meets the requirements 
for sustaining persons for 96 hours. Different types and combinations 
of instruments may be used to comprise an air-monitoring component. The 
proposal allows MSHA to determine that discrete components are 
appropriate, available, and functional for monitoring breathable air.
    MSHA believes that a properly designed system would control gas 
concentrations inside the refuge alternative. The intent of this 
provision is that detectors would be used to periodically check and 
provide a means of increasing the miner's awareness of gas 
concentrations. Instruments that require fresh air for initial startup 
would not be appropriate to be stored for use in refuge alternatives. 
If the battery life of the instruments is not sufficient for 96 hours 
of monitoring then multiple detectors would be required.
    Paragraph (a)(10) would require that the ERP include the method to 
provide lighting sufficient to perform tasks. Sufficient light is 
essential to allow persons to read instructions and warnings, as well 
as reading gages, operating gas monitoring detectors, and other 
activities related to the operation of the refuge alternatives and the 
needs of the occupants. Lighting that generates significant heat, or 
requires continual manual power for light generation, would be 
unacceptable for use in a refuge alternative.
    Paragraph (a)(11) would require mine operators to affirmatively 
state in the ERP that the locations are suitable for refuge 
alternatives. The proposed rule would require that refuge alternatives 
be protected from known hazards in the coal mine. Refuge alternatives 
would also need to be located so that they are easily accessible. The 
proposed rule would require that refuge alternatives be placed at 
locations that do not have obstructions to future physical dimensions 
of the refuge alternative. The provisions are necessary to assure the 
availability and survivability of the structure and the occupants.
    Paragraph (a)(11)(i) and (ii) would require that the ERP specify 
that refuge alternatives are not within direct line of sight of the 
working face and, where feasible, not in areas directly across from, 
nor closer than 500 feet radially from, belt drives, take-ups, transfer 
points, air compressors, explosive magazines, seals, entrances to 
abandoned areas, and fuel, oil, or other flammable or combustible 
material storage. The proposed rule addresses the potential damage from 
a working face explosion and, additionally, the potential of a fire at 
certain areas or equipment. Locating refuge alternatives away from 
these areas would minimize the heat or explosive forces that could 
occur and affect the safety of persons in the refuge alternative.
    NIOSH recommended that refuge alternatives be positioned in 
crosscuts rather than entries, or located in dead-end cuts to decrease 
the possibility of damage from overpressure or flying debris from an 
explosion. NIOSH also recommended that refuge alternatives be located 
away from potential sources of fires, such as belt drives. NIOSH 
further recommended that, whenever practical, the refuge alternative 
should not be located in nor off of track entries nor within 
approximately 1,000 feet of any mine seal.
    This proposal includes locations for refuge alternatives that are 
consistent with NIOSH's recommendations. The Agency would consider 
exceptions to this requirement when it is not feasible to locate the 
refuge alternative according to this provision.
    Proposed paragraph (b) contains provisions for ERPs for refuge 
alternatives constructed in place. The proposal would require that the 
ERP specify that stoppings and doors are designed to resist 15 psi 
overpressure.
    Paragraph (b)(1) would require that the ERP include information on 
breathable air components approved by MSHA. Breathable air is intended 
to protect miners from injury or death from a contaminated atmosphere. 
MSHA is proposing that breathable air contain an oxygen concentration 
between 18.5 and 23 percent and a carbon dioxide concentration not 
exceeding a 1.0 percent time-weighted average and that at no time 
exceeds 2.5 percent for any 24-hour period. These concentrations are 
consistent with NIOSH's recommendation. Breathable air delivered from 
fans or compressors through pipes or air lines would need to meet the 
requirements of Part 7.
    Paragraph (b)(2) would require that the ERP specify that the refuge 
alternative is capable of withstanding exposure to a flash fire of 300 
[deg]F for 3 seconds and a pressure wave of 15 psi overpressure for 0.2 
seconds. Because the stoppings must protect the components of the 
refuge alternative and persons inside, the stoppings must be able to 
withstand both flash fires and explosive overpressures.
    Proposed paragraph (c) contains provisions for ERPs for refuge 
alternatives consisting of materials pre-positioned for miners to 
construct a secure space with an isolated atmosphere.
    Paragraph (c)(1) would require that the ERP specify the means to 
store and protect materials from being damaged when moved. The operator 
would be required to provide details of how the components are placed 
on a transportation device to provide security, transportation 
readiness and component integration to assure this alternative will be 
available when needed and readily constructed and activated. The 
materials should be arranged together and protected from potential 
damage when moved.
    Paragraph (c)(2) would require that the ERP specify that the refuge 
alternative can withstand exposure to a flash fire of 300 [deg]F for 3 
seconds and a pressure wave of 15 psi overpressure for 0.2 seconds 
prior to construction and activation. Because this type of refuge 
alternative is constructed following an accident, materials and 
components would be stored in a crosscut or dead-end entry until 
needed. The materials and components must be stored in a container that 
will withstand a flash fire of 300 [deg]F for 3 seconds and a pressure 
wave of 15 psi overpressure for 0.2 seconds so that the components 
would operate as intended and would be available and functional when 
needed.
    Paragraph (c)(3) would require that the ERP specify the method for 
assuring that the refuge alternative could be constructed and 
functional in 10 minutes. Under the location requirements for refuge 
alternatives, miners would never be more than 30 minutes from either 
the portal or a refuge alternative. In the event of an accident, a 
miner with only one SCSR would have 30 minutes to reach the portal or a 
refuge alternative. The proposal would allot 10 minutes to establish a 
barrier between the interior and exterior atmospheres. The remaining 20 
minutes of breathable air provided by the SCSR would allow time for 
purging the refuge alternative to establish a breathable atmosphere.
    Paragraph (c)(4) would require that the ERP specify the method for 
having all components ready to be activated and used. Components 
include breathable air, harmful gas removal, air monitoring, 
communication, first aid, food and water, and sanitation. The proposal 
would assist MSHA in determining that components comprise a complete 
functional refuge alternative.
    Paragraph (c)(5) would require that the ERP specify the means to 
assure that

[[Page 34162]]

the initial air quality is breathable once the refuge alternative is 
constructed. This refuge alternative is built following an accident, 
which could produce smoke and contaminated air in the area where the 
refuge alternative is constructed. Therefore, the atmosphere may be 
contaminated and would need purging or other effective methods as 
necessary, within 20 minutes of miners activating the refuge 
alternative, for the airlock to dilute the carbon monoxide 
concentration to 25 ppm or less and the methane concentration to 1.5 
percent or less as persons enter. An operator would need to provide 
sufficient compressed air to purge the refuge alternative to establish 
a breathable atmosphere.
    Paragraph (d) contains provisions for ERPs if the refuge 
alternative would only sustain persons for 48 hours. It would require 
that the ERP specify that advance arrangements have been made to assure 
that persons who cannot be rescued within 48 hours will receive 
additional supplies to sustain them until rescue. The basis for the 
proposal is MSHA's existing PIB on breathable air.
    Paragraph (d)(1) would require that the advance arrangements 
specified in the ERP include pre-surveyed areas for refuge alternatives 
with closure errors of less than 20,000:1. The proposed provision is 
intended to assure that the survey that is done on the surface and the 
one performed underground are closed. The surface survey could be done 
with global positioning satellite equipment. When a survey connects 
back to itself, it is called a loop. The loop in this provision would 
begin with the surface survey of the location above the location of the 
refuge alternative and along a route to the underground location of the 
refuge alternative and back to the beginning survey location on the 
surface. If a loop is surveyed perfectly, the survey should come back 
to the exact point at which it started. If the loop does not come back 
to the exact starting point, it is called a closure error. Closure 
errors indicate that some or all of the survey measurements within a 
loop have errors. This provision assures accuracy in getting the 
borehole to the correct location underground.
    Paragraph (d)(2) would require that the advance arrangements 
specified in the ERP include an analysis to indicate that the surface 
terrain, the strata, the capabilities of the drill rig, and all other 
factors that could affect drilling are such that a hole sufficient to 
provide required supplies and materials reliably can be promptly 
drilled within 48 hours of an accident at a mine. This provision is 
intended to assure that conditions that could interfere with or delay 
drilling are discovered and prepared for well in advance. The drill rig 
capabilities should be examined to assure the appropriate drill model 
is selected. This allows planning so that correct equipment and 
supplies are available when needed.
    Paragraph (d)(3) would require that the advance arrangements 
specified in the ERP include permissions to cross properties, build 
roads, and construct drill sites. This provision is intended to assure 
that the arrangement to drill a borehole is done in advance so that 
normal delays that would occur during a mine emergency are eliminated 
and the drilling can proceed immediately upon arrival of the drill rig.
    Paragraph (d)(4) would require that the advance arrangements 
specified in the ERP include an arrangement with a drilling contractor 
or other supplier of drilling services to provide a suitable drilling 
rig, personnel, and support so that a hole can be completed to the 
refuge alternative within 48 hours. MSHA expects that the arrangements 
that are finalized with the drilling contractor and other suppliers are 
such that all details including, but not limited to, mobilization, 
availability, ancillary services, back-up plans, drill-hole 
specifications, completion schedules, and spare parts are considered 
and included.
    Paragraph (d)(5) would require that the advance arrangements 
specified in the ERP include the capability to promptly transport a 
drill rig to a pre-surveyed location such that a drilled hole would be 
completed and located near a refuge alternative structure within 48 
hours of an accident at a mine. MSHA intends that this provision would 
assure the prompt delivery of the drill to the site. If the site is not 
easily accessible, the operator should have advance arrangements to 
have the appropriate equipment to transport, deliver, or carry the 
drill rig to the site. The operator should consider and prepare for 
potential delays. These procedures should be adequately evaluated to 
assure that 48 hours are more than reasonable. MSHA expects that the 
borehole would be drilled near the location of the refuge alternative. 
A method for supplying breathable air from the surface through the 
borehole would need to have the capability to provide a sufficient 
quantity of air to dilute any harmful gases in and around the refuge 
alternative.
    MSHA requests comments on whether the rule should contain a 
provision that the advance arrangements specified in the ERP include a 
method for assuring that there will be a suitable means to connect the 
drilled hole to the refuge alternative and that the connection be made 
within 10 minutes. Under this provision, MSHA would expect the operator 
to have detailed plans for making connections from the drill hole 
casing to the refuge alternative. These plans would have to address the 
conditions that the miners will encounter during this planned work, 
including smoke, contaminated atmosphere, lack of adequate lighting, 
etc. The means to connect the drill hole casing should include all 
necessary clamps, fittings, connections, proper and sufficient hosing, 
mechanical supports, and tools. The connection to the refuge 
alternative should also be planned. The number of steps to accomplish 
this task of making the connections should be minimized and simplified.
    Under this provision, MSHA would also expect that advance 
arrangements specified in the ERP include the capability to provide 
full-face breathing apparatus to persons exiting the refuge alternative 
to make necessary connections from the borehole. The breathing 
apparatus would be necessary to protect the miner from any gases or 
toxic products of combustion generated by a fire or explosion. The 
apparatus would need to have adequate capacity to allow sufficient time 
to complete the connection. The operator would also need to provide 
several breathing apparatus to enable occupants to come to the aid of 
an injured miner. Other devices, such as tag lines or tethers, would 
need to be available to assist miners in returning to the refuge 
alternative. Comments should be specific, including alternatives, 
rationale, safety benefits to miners, technological and economic 
feasibility and supporting data.
    Paragraph (d)(6) would require that the advance arrangements 
specified in the ERP include a list of the pipes, air lines, approved 
fan, and approved compressor that will be used. This information 
decreases the possibility that an inappropriate or inadequate source of 
breathable air would be connected to the borehole.
    Paragraph (d)(7) would require that the advance arrangements 
specified in the ERP include a method for assuring that the breathable 
air system, including compressors and fans, is designed for the planned 
conditions. The design should include consideration of pipe resistance, 
volumes and velocities needed, connections required on the surface, 
power needs, supplies required and necessary redundant or back-up 
requirements. The system should be on hand and ready to provide 
breathable air after the borehole is completed.

[[Page 34163]]

    Paragraph (d)(8) would require that the advance arrangements 
specified in the ERP include a method for assuring the immediate 
availability of a backup source for supplying breathable air and a 
backup power source for surface installations. This information assists 
MSHA in evaluating the continued availability of breathable air.
    Paragraph (e) would require the ERP to specify that the refuge 
alternative is stocked with essential supplies.
    Paragraph (e)(1) would require that the ERP specify a minimum of 
2,000 calories of food and 2.25 quarts of potable water per person per 
day to sustain the maximum number of persons reasonably expected to use 
the refuge alternative at one time. These requirements would provide 
adequate amounts of food and water and are consistent with NIOSH 
recommendations. These components should be replaced prior to their 
expiration.
    Paragraph (e)(2) would require that the ERP specify that manuals 
and instructions for operation, training, and maintenance for the 
refuge alternative and components are provided. The proposal requires 
operators to obtain information necessary for the safe and effective 
use of the refuge alternative and its components.
    Paragraphs (e)(3) and (e)(4) would require that the ERP specify 
that the refuge alternative is stocked with sufficient quantities of 
materials and tools to do repairs and first aid supplies.
    MSHA proposed rules have provided flexibility in the type of refuge 
alternatives that will meet the requirements. The type of alternative 
is not specific to the seam heights. MSHA recognizes that the 60 cubic 
feet requirement may be of concern in mines with low seam heights.
Section 75.1508 Training and Records for Examination, Maintenance, 
Transportation, and Repair of Refuge Alternatives and Components
    Paragraph (a) would require that persons be trained on examining, 
maintaining, transporting, and repairing refuge alternatives and 
components. A refuge alternative includes a number of functional 
components that are vital to the survival of persons using it. This 
proposal addresses training for routine examination, maintenance, 
transportation, and repair of refuge alternatives and components in 
addition to the training and drills provided all underground miners.
    Paragraph (a)(1) would require the operator to assure that all 
persons assigned to examine, maintain, transport, and repair refuge 
alternatives and components are trained prior to performing the task. 
This training assures that these critical facilities and components are 
available and usable when needed. All facilities and components should 
be maintained using the manufacturer's specifications and procedures. 
The examiner should be trained in the aspects critical to the 
activation and use of the refuge alternative. In addition, paragraph 
(a)(1) would require training in proper transportation of the refuge 
alternative or component. Miners need to be aware of the safe 
procedures necessary to transport a refuge alternative or component 
from one location to another. Training in these procedures would 
include knowledge of all connections necessary for transportation, such 
as tow bars, clevises, and hitches. MSHA requests comments on these 
training requirements and whether it would be more appropriate to 
include training on examining, maintaining, transporting, and repairing 
refuge alternatives under the training provisions of Part 48. Comments 
should be specific, including alternatives, rationale, safety benefits 
to miners, technological and economic feasibility, and supporting data.
    Paragraph (a)(2) would require the operator to certify, by 
signature and date, the training of persons who examine, maintain, 
transport, and repair refuge alternatives and components. The training 
certifications help MSHA and the operator assure that the appropriate 
personnel have received the required training. Maintenance and repair 
work on refuge alternatives and components will not occur at regular 
intervals. To facilitate these maintenance tasks a just-in-time 
approach to training is required. The required training can vary given 
the scope of the tasks and the interval since the last training in that 
same task.
    Paragraph (b) would require the person conducting the maintenance 
or repair to make a record of all corrective action taken at the 
completion of each repair required by this paragraph. Records of 
training help assure that persons are periodically re-trained to 
prevent skills degradation.
    Paragraph (c) would require that the mine operator keep the 
training certifications and repair records at the mine for one year. 
Certification and repair records are necessary to help MSHA and the 
operator identify any systemic defects or problems with the refuge 
alternative are identified and corrected.
Section 75.1600-3 Communications Facilities; Refuge Alternatives
    Paragraph (a) would require that refuge alternatives be provided 
with a two-way communication system and an additional communication 
system when approved in the mine operator's Emergency Response Plan. 
Communications with the persons in refuge alternatives are vital to 
mine rescue efforts. The knowledge of where miners are in refuge 
alternatives, their condition, and the conditions in the mine may make 
the difference between life-and-death in a post-accident crisis.
    Paragraph (a)(1) would require a two-way communication facility 
that is a part of the mine communication system, which can be used from 
inside the refuge alternative. The communications device must be usable 
without further exposing persons to smoke and toxic gases. MSHA 
solicits comments on the proposed two-way communication facility. 
Please be specific in your response, including alternatives, rationale, 
safety benefits to miners, technological and economic feasibility, and 
data to support your comments.
    Paragraph (a)(2) would require an additional communication system 
when approved in the operator's Emergency Response Plan (ERP).

III. Executive Order 12866

    Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 requires that regulatory agencies 
assess both the costs and benefits of regulations. To comply with E.O. 
12866, MSHA has prepared a Preliminary Regulatory Economic Analysis 
(PREA) for this proposed rule. The PREA contains supporting data and 
explanation for the summary materials presented in this preamble, 
including the covered mining industry, costs and benefits, feasibility, 
small business impacts, and paperwork. The PREA can be found at MSHA's 
Web site at http://www.msha.gov/REGSINFO.HTM. A copy of the PREA can be 
obtained from MSHA's Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances at 
the address in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. MSHA requests 
comments on all the estimates of costs and benefits presented in this 
preamble and in the PREA, and on the data and assumptions the Agency 
used to develop estimates.
    Under E.O. 12866, a significant regulatory action is one meeting 
any of a number of specified conditions, including the following: 
Having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
creating a serious inconsistency or interfering with an action of 
another agency, materially altering the budgetary impact of

[[Page 34164]]

entitlements or the rights of entitlement recipients, or raising novel 
legal or policy issues. Based on the PREA, MSHA has determined that 
this proposed rule would have an annual effect of $100 million or more 
on the economy and that, therefore, it is an economically significant 
regulatory action.
Congressional Review Act
    The costs in the PREA represent what MSHA believes to be the upper 
bound of the range of estimated compliance costs: $102.6 million first 
year and $43.3 million yearly. MSHA has presented these upper-bound 
estimates as a conservative approach to estimating compliance costs. 
However, based upon a review of literature and discussions with 
manufacturers of refuge alternatives, MSHA believes that a more 
realistic assumption of the types of refuge alternatives required under 
the proposal provides a lower-bound estimate of costs: $84.1 million 
first year and $38.7 million yearly. MSHA has revised the PREA to 
include these lower-bound estimates of costs. If costs are more in line 
with the lower-bound estimates, the Congressional Review Act (CRA) 
would not apply. If costs are more in line with MSHA's upper-bound 
estimates, then the rule would be classified as a major rule and MSHA 
would comply with the CRA. Under the CRA, major rules generally cannot 
take effect until 60 days after the rule is published.

A. Population at Risk

    The proposal would apply to all underground coal mines in the 
United States. Based on the most recent MSHA data, there were 624 
underground coal mines, employing approximately 42,200 miners, in the 
United States in 2007, of which 613 mines employ miners working 
underground. These 613 mines employ approximately 37,800 miners and 
5,100 miners working underground, for a total of approximately 42,900 
workers underground.

B. Benefits

1. Introduction
    One of the goals of the MINER Act is to improve emergency response 
capability in underground coal mines. MSHA has published a number of 
standards in the last several years and has stated in them that, in the 
event of a mine emergency in an underground coal mine, the miner should 
be trained to evacuate the mine. Over the years, MSHA has promulgated a 
number of rules that address the safety of miners in the event of 
explosions, fires, or inundations in underground coal mines. These 
rules include requirements which address escape from a mine, such as: 
Two separate and distinct escapeways for each working section, maps in 
an underground mine that delineate escape routes out of the mine, miner 
participation in practice drills to escape the mine in an emergency 
situation, and life-saving devices such as lifelines and self-contained 
self-rescue (SCSR) devices to facilitate escape. This proposed rule 
would require refuge alternatives in the event that escape is delayed 
or not possible.
    This proposal would improve mine operators' preparedness for mine 
emergencies and increase miners' safety by requiring refuge 
alternatives underground to protect and sustain miners trapped when a 
life-threatening event occurs that prevents escape. The refuge 
alternatives proposed in the rule may also assist miners in escaping 
from the mine.
2. Evaluation of Accident and Injury Data
    MSHA has evaluated its accident and injury data from 1900 through 
2006. During that period, 264 miners who were alive after a mine 
accident died later during rescue or escape. Because forty-three lives 
have previously been attributed to other recent MSHA regulatory 
actions, a total of 221 lives could have been saved over the 107 year 
period for purposes of estimating benefits for this proposal. If refuge 
alternatives had been available, MSHA estimates that the range of lives 
saved would be between a low of 25 percent and a high of 75 percent. 
MSHA estimates that 55 lives could have been saved under the lower 
estimate, and that 166 lives could have been saved under the higher 
estimate. Using these estimates, the proposal would result in 
approximately one-half life saved per year under the lower estimate or 
one and one-half lives saved per year under the higher estimate.
3. Conclusion
    The proposed rule would implement the MINER Act. It would require 
that mine operators install refuge alternatives and would include 
requirements for use, transport, maintenance, and inspection of refuge 
alternatives. These provisions would be essential for effective 
operation of the refuge alternatives during an emergency. The proposed 
rule would also include requirements for training of miners on how to 
use refuge alternatives during an emergency. To facilitate mine 
emergency preparedness, refuge alternative training would be integrated 
into existing escapeway drill training--quarterly mine evacuation 
training and annual expectations training. The proposed rule would 
include requirements for installing necessary roof support in areas 
where refuge alternatives are placed to assure that they will not be 
damaged. It would also require that the locations of refuge 
alternatives be noted on the mine maps so that miners can easily locate 
the refuge alternatives in an emergency. The proposal would also 
require that miners be trained to maintain and repair refuge 
alternatives. In addition, the proposal would require that refuge 
alternatives (and their components) be inspected before each shift to 
assure that they are always functioning properly and will be effective 
in the event of any emergency. The proposal would also include 
requirements for the location of refuge alternatives to assure that 
they are readily accessible to all miners underground when an emergency 
occurs.

C. Compliance Costs

    MSHA estimates that the total yearly cost of the proposed rule 
would be approximately $43.3 million for underground coal mine 
operators and refuge alternative manufacturers. MSHA estimates that the 
proposed rule would result in a total yearly cost of $2.1 million for 
manufacturers and $41.2 million for underground coal mine operators.
    The first-year cost of the proposed rule is approximately $102.6 
million. The costs in the PREA represent what MSHA believes to be the 
upper bound of the range of estimated compliance costs: $102.6 million 
first year and $43.3 million yearly. MSHA has presented these upper-
bound estimates as a conservative approach to estimating compliance 
costs. However, based upon a review of literature and discussions with 
manufacturers of refuge alternatives, MSHA believes that a more 
realistic assumption of the types of refuge alternatives required under 
the proposal provides a lower-bound estimate of costs: $84.1 million 
first year and $38.7 million yearly. MSHA has revised the PREA to 
include these lower-bound estimates of costs.
    By mine size, the estimated yearly cost would be $3.1 million for 
operators with 1-19 employees; $33.1 million for operators with 20-500 
employees; and $5 million for operators with 501+ employees.
    The approximate cost of the proposed rule by provision would be: 
$2.1 million for refuge alternative and component application and 
approval costs; $21.8 million for the costs to purchase, install,

[[Page 34165]]

transport, and repair refuge alternatives; $6.6 million for the costs 
for pre-shift exams and revisions to plans and maps; and $12.8 million 
for training costs.
    Table 1 presents a summary of the yearly costs of the proposed rule 
by mine size and by cost category. MSHA solicits comments on the yearly 
costs of the proposed rule. Comments should be specific including 
alternatives, rationale, and supporting data.

                               Table 1.--Summary of Yearly Costs of Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Detail                                                                               Yearly cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Cost to Manufacturers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application and Approval Costs..                                                              $2.1 million.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Cost to Mine Operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Mine size
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    1-19 employees     20-500 employees     501+ employees           Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost for Purchase, Installation,  $2.4 million......  $17.5 million.....  $1.9 million......  $21.8 million.
 Moving, and Repair of Refuge
 Alternatives.
Cost for Pre-Shift Exams and      $300,000..........  $5.2 million......  $1.2 million......  $6.6 million.
 Revisions to Plans, Maps, and
 Programs.
Cost for Training...............  $520,000..........  $10.4 million.....  $1.9 million......  $12.8 million.
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  $3.1 million......  $33.1 million.....  $5 million........  $41.2 million.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: In some cases, the totals may deviate from the sum of the components due to rounding.

IV. Feasibility

    Although MSHA has concluded that the requirements of the proposed 
rule would be both technologically and economically feasible, MSHA 
recognizes that all refuge alternative applications may not be 
appropriate for all mining conditions.

A. Technological Feasibility

    MSHA believes that this proposed rule is feasible because refuge 
alternatives are currently being manufactured for use in underground 
coal mines in West Virginia and Illinois. MSHA recognizes that it may 
not be feasible to locate the refuge alternative according to this 
proposal. In addition, MSHA recognizes that using the refuge 
alternatives in low coal mines could be problematic. The Agency further 
recognizes that certain types of refuge alternatives may not be 
feasible in low coal mines. MSHA also recognizes that research on some 
requirements of refuge alternatives, for example, post accident 
communications, is on-going. MSHA will continue to work with NIOSH and 
the mining community as refuge alternative technology continues to be 
developed. MSHA solicits comment from the public on the location of 
refuge alternatives, the use of refuge alternatives in low coal mines, 
and the feasibility of requirements for refuge alternatives. Please be 
specific in your response, including alternatives, rationale, safety 
benefits to miners, technological and economic feasibility, and data to 
support your comment.
    Also, MSHA may approve refuge alternatives or components that 
incorporate new technology, if the applicant demonstrates that the 
refuge alternative or components provide no less protection than those 
meeting the requirements of the proposed rule.

B. Economic Feasibility

    MSHA estimated that the yearly compliance cost of the proposed rule 
is approximately $41.2 million for underground coal mine operators, 
which is 0.3 percent of annual revenue of $14.1 billion for all 
underground coal mines. MSHA concludes that the proposed rule would be 
economically feasible for these mines because the total yearly 
compliance cost is below one percent of the estimated annual revenue 
for all underground coal mines.

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA), MSHA has analyzed the impact of the proposed rule on small 
entities. Based on that analysis, MSHA has notified the Chief Counsel 
for Advocacy, Small Business Administration (SBA), and made the 
certification under the RFA at 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the proposed rule 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. The factual basis for this certification is presented 
in the PREA and summarized below.

A. Definition of a Small Mine

    Under the RFA, in analyzing the impact of the proposed rule on 
small entities, MSHA must use the SBA definition for a small entity, or 
after consultation with the SBA Office of Advocacy, establish an 
alternative definition for the mining industry by publishing that 
definition in the Federal Register for notice and comment. MSHA has not 
established an alternative definition and is required to use the SBA 
definition. The SBA defines a small entity in the mining industry as an 
establishment with 500 or fewer employees.
    MSHA has also examined the impact of this proposed rule on 
underground coal mines with fewer than 20 employees, which MSHA has 
traditionally referred to as ``small mines.'' These small mines differ 
from larger mines not only in the number of employees, but also in 
economies of scale in material produced, in the type and amount of 
production equipment, and in supply inventory. Therefore, the cost of 
complying with MSHA's proposed rule and the impact of the proposed rule 
on small mines will also be different.
    This analysis complies with the legal requirements of the RFA for 
an analysis of the impact on ``small entities'' while continuing MSHA's 
traditional concern for ``small mines.''

B. Factual Basis for Certification

    MSHA initially evaluates the impact on small entities by comparing 
the estimated compliance cost of a rule for

[[Page 34166]]

small entities in the sector affected by the rule to the estimated 
revenue of the affected sector. When the estimated compliance cost is 
less than one percent of the estimated revenue, the Agency believes it 
is generally appropriate to conclude that the rule would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
When the estimated compliance cost exceeds one percent of revenue, MSHA 
investigates whether further analysis is required.
    Total underground coal production in 2007 was approximately 278 
million tons for mines with 500 or fewer employees. Using the 2007 
price of underground coal of $40.37 per ton, MSHA estimates that 
underground coal revenue was approximately $11.2 billion for mines with 
500 or fewer employees. Under MSHA's upper-bound estimate, the yearly 
cost of the proposed rule for mines with 500 or fewer employees is 
estimated to be approximately $36 million, or approximately $59 
thousand per mine. This is equal to approximately 0.32 percent of 
annual revenue. Under MSHA's lower-bound estimate, the yearly cost of 
the proposed rule for mines with 500 or fewer employees is estimated to 
be approximately $32 million, or approximately $52 thousand per mine. 
This is equal to approximately 0.29 percent of annual revenue. Since, 
under both the upper and lower-bound estimates, the yearly cost of the 
proposed rule is less than one percent of annual revenue for small 
underground coal mines, as defined by SBA, MSHA has certified that the 
proposed rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small mining entities, as defined by SBA. However, MSHA has 
provided, in the PREA accompanying this rule, a complete analysis of 
the cost impact on this category of mines.
    Total underground coal production in 2007 was approximately 7.7 
million tons for mines with fewer than 20 employees. Using the 2007 
price of underground coal of $40.37 per ton, MSHA estimates that 
underground coal revenue was approximately $310.2 million for mines 
with fewer than 20 employees. Under MSHA's upper-bound estimate, the 
yearly cost of the proposed rule for mines with fewer than 20 employees 
is estimated to be approximately $3.15 million, or approximately 
$14,116 per mine. This is equal to approximately 1.02 percent of annual 
revenue. Under MSHA's lower-bound estimate, the yearly cost for mines 
with fewer than 20 employees is estimated to be approximately $2.8 
million, or approximately $13 thousand per mine. This is equal to 
approximately 0.91 percent of annual revenue.
    In the Agency's PREA, MSHA estimates that some mines might 
experience costs somewhat higher than the average per mine in its size 
category while others might experience lower costs. Even though the 
analysis reflects a range of impacts for different mine sizes, from 
0.32 to 1.02 percent of annual revenue under MSHA's upper-bound 
estimate and from 0.29 to 0.91 percent of annual revenue under MSHA's 
lower-bound estimate, the Agency concludes that this is not a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small mines. 
MSHA has provided, in the PREA accompanying this rule, a complete 
analysis of the cost impact on this category of mines.

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act

A. Summary

    This proposed rule contains information collection requirements 
that would affect requirements in existing paperwork packages with OMB 
Control Numbers 1219-0004, 1219-0054, 1219-0066, 1219-0073, 1219-0088, 
and 1219-0141. The new information collection requirements contained in 
the proposed rule are found in proposed Sec. Sec.  7.503, 75.221, 
75.360, 75.372, 75.1200, 75.1502, 75.1505, 75.1506, 75.1507, and 
75.1508, which would establish new approval requirements for refuge 
alternatives. This proposed rule would result in 90,189 burden hours 
and related costs of approximately $6.8 million in the first year the 
rule is in effect. In the second year the rule is in effect, and every 
year thereafter, the proposed rule would result in 78,138 burden hours 
and related costs of approximately $6.6 million.
    For a detailed summary of the burden hours and related costs by 
provision, see the PREA accompanying this proposed rule. The PREA is 
posted on MSHA's Web site at http://www.msha.gov/REGSINFO.HTM. A copy 
of the PREA can be obtained from MSHA's Office of Standards, 
Regulations, and Variances at the address provided in the ADDRESSES 
section of this preamble.

B. Procedural Details

    The information collection package has been submitted to OMB for 
review under 44 U.S.C. 3504, paragraph (h) of the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995, as amended. A copy of the information collection package 
can be obtained from the Department of Labor by electronic mail request 
to [email protected] or by phone request to 202-693-4129.
    MSHA requests comments to:
     Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is 
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, 
including whether the information will have practical utility;
     Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the 
burden of the proposed collection of information, including the 
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected; and
     Minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate 
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting 
electronic submission of responses.
    Comments on the information collection requirements should be sent 
to both OMB and MSHA. Addresses for both offices can be found in the 
ADDRESSES section of this preamble. The regulated community is not 
required to respond to any collection of information unless it displays 
a current, valid, OMB control number. MSHA displays OMB control numbers 
in 30 CFR part 3.

VII. Other Regulatory Analyses

A. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    MSHA has reviewed the proposed rule under the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). MSHA has determined that 
the proposed rule would not include any Federal mandate that may result 
in increased expenditures by State, local, or tribal governments or 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. MSHA estimates that 
the proposed rule would increase private sector expenditures by more 
than $100 million in the first year and has included an analysis of the 
costs of the requirements of the proposed rule in this PREA.

B. Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999: 
Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families

    The proposed rule would have no effect on family well-being or 
stability, marital commitment, parental rights or authority, or income 
or poverty of families and children. Accordingly, Sec.  654 of the 
Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999 (5 U.S.C. 
601 note) requires no further agency action, analysis, or assessment.

[[Page 34167]]

C. Executive Order 12630: Government Actions and Interference With 
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights

    The proposed rule would not implement a policy with takings 
implications. Accordingly, Executive Order 12630 requires no further 
agency action or analysis.

D. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform

    The proposed rule was written to provide a clear legal standard for 
affected conduct and was carefully reviewed to eliminate drafting 
errors and ambiguities, so as to minimize litigation and undue burden 
on the Federal court system. Accordingly, the proposed rule meets the 
applicable standards provided in Sec.  3 of Executive Order 12988.

E. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The proposed rule would have no adverse impact on children. 
Accordingly, Executive Order 13045 requires no further agency action or 
analysis.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    The proposed rule would not have ``federalism implications'' 
because it would not ``have substantial direct effects on the States, 
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 
levels of government.'' MSHA acknowledges that West Virginia and 
Illinois have laws and/or regulations on refuge alternatives and has 
drafted the proposed rule to minimize conflict with these laws and 
regulations.

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    The proposed rule would not have ``tribal implications'' because it 
would not ``have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian 
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian 
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between 
the Federal government and Indian tribes.'' Accordingly, Executive 
Order 13175 requires no further agency action or analysis.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The proposed rule has been reviewed for its impact on the supply, 
distribution, and use of energy because it applies to the coal mining 
industry. Insofar as the proposed rule would result in yearly costs of 
approximately $41.2 million to the underground coal mining industry, 
relative to annual revenues of $14.1 billion in 2007, it is not a 
``significant energy action'' because it is not ``likely to have a 
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy * * * (including a shortfall in supply, price increases, and 
increased use of foreign supplies).'' Accordingly, Executive Order 
13211 requires no further Agency action or analysis.

I. Executive Order 13272: Proper Consideration of Small Entities in 
Agency Rulemaking

    MSHA has reviewed the proposed rule to assess and take appropriate 
account of its potential impact on small businesses, small governmental 
jurisdictions, and small organizations. MSHA has determined and 
certified that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

List of Subjects

30 CFR Part 7

    Coal mines, Mine safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Underground mining.

30 CFR Part 75

    Coal mines, Mine safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Safety, Training programs, Underground mining.

    Dated: June 11, 2008.
Richard E. Stickler,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Mine Safety and 
Health Administration is proposing to amend 30 CFR parts 7 and 75 as 
follows:

PART 7--TESTING BY APPLICANT OR THIRD PARTY--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 7 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 30 U.S.C. 957.

    2. Add new subpart L to read as follows:
Subpart L--Refuge Alternatives
Sec.
7.501 Purpose and scope.
7.502 Definitions.
7.503 Application requirements.
7.504 Refuge alternatives and components; general requirements.
7.505 Structural components.
7.506 Breathable air components.
7.507 Air-monitoring components.
7.508 Harmful gas removal components.
7.509 Approval markings.
7.510 New technology.

Subpart L--Refuge Alternatives


Sec.  7.501  Purpose and scope.

    This subpart L establishes requirements for MSHA approval of a 
refuge alternative and components for use in underground coal mines. 
Refuge alternatives are intended to provide a life-sustaining 
environment for miners trapped underground when escape is impossible. 
Refuge alternatives may also be used to facilitate escape.


Sec.  7.502  Definitions.

    The following definitions apply in this subpart:
    Apparent temperature. The combined effects of air movement, heat, 
and humidity on the human body.
    Breathable oxygen. Oxygen that is at least 99 percent pure with no 
harmful contaminants.
    Flash fire. A fire that rapidly spreads through a diffuse fuel, 
such as airborne coal dust or methane, without producing damaging 
pressure.
    Noncombustible material. Material, such as concrete or steel, that 
will not ignite, burn, support combustion, or release flammable vapors 
when subjected to fire or heat.
    Overpressure. The highest pressure over the background atmospheric 
pressure that results from an explosion, which includes the impact of 
the pressure wave on an object.
    Refuge alternative. A protected, secure space with an isolated 
atmosphere and integrated components that create a life-sustaining 
environment for persons trapped in an underground coal mine.


Sec.  7.503  Application requirements.

    (a) An application for approval of a refuge alternative or 
component shall include:
    (1) The refuge alternative or component's make and model number, if 
applicable.
    (2) A list of the refuge alternative or component's parts that 
includes--
    (i) The MSHA approval number for electric-powered equipment;
    (ii) Each component's or part's in-mine shelf life, service life, 
and recommended replacement schedule; and
    (iii) The materials used in each component or part with their MSHA 
approval number or a statement that the materials are noncombustible.
    (3) The capacity and duration (the number of persons it is designed 
to maintain and for how long) of the refuge alternative or component on 
a per-person per-day basis.

[[Page 34168]]

    (4) The length, width, and height of the space required for storage 
of each component.
    (b) The application for approval of the refuge alternative shall 
specify the following:
    (1) A description of the breathable air component, including 
drawings, air-supply sources, piping, regulators, and controls.
    (2) The maximum volume, excluding the airlock; the dimensions of 
space provided for each person using the refuge alternative; and the 
interior dimensions of the airlock.
    (3) The maximum allowable positive pressures in the interior space 
and the airlock and describe the means used to limit or control the 
positive pressure.
    (4) The maximum allowable apparent temperature of the interior 
space and the airlock and the means to control the apparent 
temperature.
    (5) Drawings that show the features of each component and contain 
sufficient information to document compliance with the technical 
requirements.
    (6) A training manual that contains sufficient detail for each 
refuge alternative or component addressing in-mine transportation, 
operation, and maintenance of the unit.
    (7) A summary of the procedures for constructing and activating 
refuge alternatives.
    (8) A summary of the procedures for using the refuge alternative.
    (9) The results of inspections, evaluations, calculations, and 
tests conducted under this subpart.
    (c) The application for approval of the air-monitoring component 
shall specify the following:
    (1) The operating range, type of sensor, gas or gases measured, and 
environmental limitations, including the cross-sensitivity to other 
gases, of each detector or device in the air-monitoring component.
    (2) The method for operation of the individual devices so that they 
function as necessary to test gas concentrations over a 96-hour period.
    (3) Procedures for monitoring and maintaining breathable air in the 
airlock, before and after purging.
    (4) Instructions for determining the quality of the atmosphere in 
the airlock and refuge alternative interior and a means to maintain 
breathable air in the airlock.
    (d) The application for approval of the harmful gas removal 
component shall specify the following:
    (1) The volume of breathable air available for removing harmful gas 
both at start up and while persons enter through the airlock.
    (2) The maximum volume of each gas that the component is designed 
to remove on a per-miner per-day basis.
    (e) The applicant shall certify that each component is constructed 
of suitable materials, is of good quality workmanship, is based on 
sound engineering principles, is safe for its intended use, and is 
designed to be compatible with other components in the refuge 
alternative, within the limitations specified in the approval.


Sec.  7.504  Refuge alternatives and components; general requirements.

    (a) Refuge alternatives and components:
    (1) Shall be intrinsically safe for use and designed with fire and 
explosion-proof features for use with an oxygen supply component.
    (2) Shall not produce continuous noise levels in excess of 85 dBA 
in the structure's interior.
    (3) Shall not liberate harmful or irritating gases or particulates 
into the structure's interior or airlock.
    (4) Shall be designed so that the refuge alternative can be safely 
moved with the use of appropriate devices such as tow bars.
    (5) Shall be designed to withstand forces from collision of the 
refuge alternative structure during transport or handling.
    (b) The apparent temperature in the structure shall be controlled 
as follows:
    (1) When used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions 
and defined limitations, the apparent temperature in the fully occupied 
refuge alternative shall not exceed 95[deg] Fahrenheit.
    (2) Calculations or tests shall be conducted to determine the 
maximum apparent temperature in the refuge alternative when used at 
maximum occupancy and in conjunction with required components. The 
results shall be reported in the application.
    (c) The refuge alternative shall include:
    (1) Accommodations for the following means of communications--
    (i) A telephone or an equivalent two-way facility that can be used 
from inside the refuge alternative, and
    (ii) A two-way wireless system when it is approved in the 
operator's Emergency Response Plan (ERP).
    (2) Lighting sufficient to perform tasks;
    (3) A means to contain human waste effectively and minimize 
objectionable odors;
    (4) First aid supplies; and
    (5) Materials, parts, and tools for repairs of components.
    (d) Containers used for storage of refuge alternative components 
shall be:
    (1) Airtight, waterproof, and rodent-proof;
    (2) Easy to open and close without the use of tools; and
    (3) Conspicuously marked with an expiration date and instructions 
for use.


Sec.  7.505  Structural components.

    (a) The structure shall--
    (1) Provide at least 15 square feet of floor space and at least 60 
cubic feet of volume per person;
    (2) Include storage space that secures and protects the components 
during transport and that permits ready access to components for 
inspection, maintenance, and activation;
    (3) Include an airlock that creates a barrier and isolates the 
interior space from the mine atmosphere, except for a refuge 
alternative capable of maintaining adequate positive pressure.
    (i) The airlock shall be designed for multiple uses to accommodate 
the structure's maximum occupancy.
    (ii) The airlock shall be configured to accommodate a stretcher 
without compromising its function;
    (4) Be designed and constructed to withstand 15 pounds per square 
inch (psi) overpressure for 0.2 seconds prior to activation;
    (5) Be designed and constructed to withstand exposure to a flash 
fire of 300[deg] Fahrenheit for 3 seconds prior to activation;
    (6) Be constructed with materials that are noncombustible or MSHA-
approved flame resistant;
    (7) Be constructed from reinforced material that has sufficient 
durability to withstand routine handling and resist puncture and 
tearing during activation and use;
    (8) Be guarded or reinforced to prevent damage to the structure 
that would hinder activation, entry, or use; and
    (9) Permit measurement of outside gas concentrations without 
exiting the structure or allowing entry of the outside atmosphere.
    (b) Inspections or tests shall be conducted to determine or 
demonstrate that--
    (1) Trained persons can fully activate the structure, without the 
use of tools, within 10 minutes of reaching the refuge alternative;
    (2) An overpressure of 15 psi applied to the pre-activated refuge 
alternative structure for 0.2 seconds does not allow gases to pass 
through the barrier separating the interior and exterior atmospheres;
    (3) A flash fire of 300[deg] Fahrenheit for 3 seconds does not 
allow gases to pass from the outside to the inside of the structure;

[[Page 34169]]

    (4) The overpressure forces of 15 psi do not prevent the stored 
components from operating;
    (5) A flash fire of 300[deg] Fahrenheit for 3 seconds does not 
prevent the stored components from operating;
    (6) Each structure resists puncture and tearing when tested in 
accordance with ASTM D2582-07 Standard Test Method for Puncture-
Propagation Tear Resistance of Plastic Film and Thin Sheeting;
    (7) Each reasonably anticipated repair can be completed within 10 
minutes of opening the storage space for repair materials and tools; 
and
    (8) No harmful gases or noticeable odors are released from 
nonmetallic materials before or after the flash fire test. The test 
shall determine the identity and concentrations of gases released.
    (c) If pressurized air is used to activate the structure or 
maintain its shape, the structure shall--(1) Include a pressure 
regulator or other means to prevent overpressurization of the 
structure, and
    (2) Provide a means to repair and re-pressurize the structure in 
case of failure of the structure or loss of air pressure.
    (d) The refuge alternative structure shall provide a means--
    (1) To conduct a preshift examination, without entering the 
structure, of components critical for activation; and
    (2) To indicate unauthorized entry or tampering.


Sec.  7.506  Breathable air components.

    (a) Breathable air shall be supplied by compressed air cylinders, 
compressed breathable-oxygen cylinders, fans installed on the surface 
or compressors installed on the surface. Only uncontaminated breathable 
air is allowed to be supplied to the refuge alternative.
    (b) Mechanisms shall be provided and procedures shall be followed 
such that, within the refuge alternative--
    (1) The breathable air sustains each person for 96 hours,
    (2) The oxygen concentration is maintained at levels between 18.5 
and 23 percent, and
    (3) The average carbon dioxide concentration is maintained at 1.0 
percent or less, with excursions not to exceed 2.5 percent.
    (c) Breathable air supplied by compressed air from cylinders, fans, 
or compressors shall provide a minimum flow rate of 12.5 cubic feet per 
minute of breathable air for each miner.
    (1) Fans or compressors shall meet the following:
    (i) Be equipped with a carbon monoxide detector located at the 
surface that automatically provides a visual and audible alarm if 
carbon monoxide in supplied air exceeds 10 parts per million (ppm).
    (ii) Provide in-line air-purifying sorbent beds and filters or 
other equivalent means to assure the breathing air quality and prevent 
condensation.
    (iii) Include maintenance instructions that provide specifications 
for periodic replacement or refurbishment of sorbent beds and filters 
or alternate means.
    (iv) Provide positive pressure and an automatic means to assure 
that the pressure is relieved at 0.25 psi above mine atmospheric 
pressure in the refuge alternative.
    (v) Include warnings to assure that only uncontaminated breathable 
air is supplied to the refuge alternative.
    (vi) Include air lines to supply breathable air from the fan or 
compressor to the refuge alternative.
    (A) Air lines shall be capable of preventing or removing water 
accumulation.
    (B) Air lines shall be designed and protected to prevent damage 
during normal mining operations, a flash fire of 300[deg] Fahrenheit 
(F) for 3 seconds, a pressure wave of 15 psi overpressure for 0.2 
seconds, and ground failure.
    (vii) Assure that harmful or explosive gases, water, and other 
materials cannot enter the breathable air.
    (2) Redundancy of fans or compressors and each power source shall 
be provided to permit prompt re-activation of equipment in the event of 
failure.
    (d) Compressed breathable oxygen shall--
    (1) Include instructions for activation and operation;
    (2) Provide oxygen at a minimum flow rate of 1.32 cubic feet per 
hour per miner;
    (3) Include a means to readily regulate the pressure and volume of 
the compressed oxygen;
    (4) Include an independent regulator as a backup in case of 
failure; and
    (5) Be used only with regulators, piping, and other equipment that 
is certified and maintained to prevent ignition or combustion.
    (e) Carbon dioxide removal components shall--
    (1) Include instructions for activation and operation;
    (2) Be used with breathable air cylinders or oxygen cylinders;
    (3) Remove carbon dioxide at a rate of 1.08 cubic feet per hour per 
miner;
    (4) Be contained to prevent contact with the chemicals and the 
release of airborne particles;
    (5) Be provided and packaged with all necessary means to expedite 
use, such as hangers, racks, and clips; and
    (6) Be stored in containers that are conspicuously marked with 
instructions for disposal of used chemicals.
    (f) The carbon dioxide removal component shall be tested and 
evaluated to demonstrate that it can maintain average carbon dioxide 
concentration at 1.0 percent or less, with excursions not to exceed 2.5 
percent under the following conditions:
    (1) At 55 [deg]F (4 [deg]F), 1 atmosphere (0.5 percent), and 50 percent (0.5 percent) relative 
humidity.
    (2) At 55 [deg]F (4 [deg]F), 1 atmosphere (0.5 percent), and 100 percent (0.5 percent) relative 
humidity.
    (3) At 90 [deg]F (4 [deg]F), 1 atmosphere (0.5 percent), and 50 percent (0.5 percent) relative 
humidity.
    (4) At 82 [deg]F (4 [deg]F), 1 atmosphere (0.5 percent), and 100 percent (0.5 percent) relative 
humidity.
    (g) Respirators or breathing apparatus used with a breathable air 
component shall--
    (1) Be NIOSH-approved with a means of flow and pressure regulation;
    (2) Be equipped with fittings that connect only to a breathable air 
compressed line;
    (3) Allow for communication, and the provision of food, and water 
while preventing the entry of any outside atmosphere; and
    (4) Be capable of being worn for up to 96 hours.
    (h) The applicant shall prepare and submit a risk analysis to 
assure that the breathable air component will not cause an ignition.
    (1) The analysis shall specifically address oxygen fire hazards and 
fire hazards from chemicals used for removal of carbon dioxide.
    (2) The analysis shall identify the means used to prevent any 
ignition source.
    (i) The breathable air component shall include a fire extinguisher 
that--
    (1) Is compatible with the chemicals used for removal of carbon 
dioxide; and
    (2) Uses a non-toxic extinguishing agent that does not produce a 
hazardous by-product when heated or activated.


Sec.  7.507  Air-monitoring components.

    (a) Each refuge alternative shall have an air-monitoring component 
that provides persons inside with the ability to determine the 
concentrations of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, oxygen, and methane, 
inside and outside the structure, including the airlock.
    (b) Refuge alternatives designed for use in mines with a history of 
harmful

[[Page 34170]]

gases, other than carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and methane, shall 
be equipped to measure the harmful gases' concentrations.
    (c) The air-monitoring component shall be inspected or tested and 
the test results shall be included in the application.
    (d) All air-monitoring components shall be approved as permissible 
by MSHA and the MSHA approval number shall be specified in the 
application.
    (e) The air-monitoring component shall meet the following:
    (1) The total measurement error, including the cross-sensitivity to 
other gases, shall not exceed 10 percent of the reading, 
except as specified in the approval.
    (2) The measurement error limits shall not be exceeded after 
startup, after 8 hours of continuous operation, after 96 hours of 
storage, and after exposure to atmospheres with a carbon monoxide 
concentration of 999 ppm (full-scale), a carbon dioxide concentration 
of 3 percent, and full-scale concentrations of other gases.
    (3) Calibration gas values shall be traceable to the National 
Institute for Standards and Testing (NIST) ``Standard Reference 
Materials'' (SRMs).
    (4) The analytical accuracy of the calibration gas values shall be 
within 2.0 percent of NIST gas standards.
    (5) The analytical accuracy of the span gas values shall be within 
2.0 percent of NIST gas standards.
    (6) The detectors shall be capable of being kept fully charged and 
ready for immediate use.


Sec.  7.508  Harmful gas removal components.

    (a) Each refuge alternative shall include means for removing 
harmful gases.
    (1) Purging or other effective methods shall be provided for the 
airlock to dilute the carbon monoxide concentration to 25 ppm or less 
and the methane concentration to 1.5 percent or less as persons enter, 
within 20 minutes of miners activating the refuge alternative.
    (2) Chemical scrubbing or other effective methods shall be provided 
to maintain the average carbon dioxide concentration in the occupied 
structure at 1.0 percent or less with excursions not to exceed 2.5 
percent.
    (b) The harmful gas removal component shall meet the following 
requirements:
    (1) Each chemical for removal of harmful gas shall be contained 
such that when stored or used they cannot come in contact with persons.
    (2) Each chemical used for removal of harmful gas shall be provided 
together with all materials, parts, or equipment necessary for its use.
    (3) Each chemical used for removal of harmful gas shall be stored 
in an approved container that is conspicuously marked with the 
manufacturer's instructions for disposal of used chemical.
    (c) Each harmful gas removal component shall be tested to determine 
its ability to remove harmful gases.
    (1) The component shall be tested in a refuge alternative structure 
that is representative of the configuration and maximum volume from 
which the component is designed to remove harmful gases.
    (i) The test shall include three sampling points located vertically 
along the centerlines of the length and width of the structure and 
equally spaced over the horizontal centerline of the height of the 
structure.
    (ii) The structure shall be sealed airtight.
    (iii) The operating gas sampling instruments shall be placed inside 
the structure and continuously exposed to the test atmosphere.
    (iv) Sampling instruments shall simultaneously measure the gas 
concentrations at the three sampling points.
    (2) For testing the component's ability to remove carbon monoxide, 
the structure shall be filled with a test gas of either purified 
synthetic air or purified nitrogen that contains 400 ppm carbon 
monoxide.
    (i) After a stable concentration of 400 ppm, 5 percent, 
carbon monoxide has been obtained for 5 minutes at all three sampling 
points, a timer shall be started and the structure shall be purged or 
carbon monoxide otherwise removed.
    (ii) Carbon monoxide concentration readings from each of the three 
sampling devices shall be recorded every 2 minutes.
    (iii) The time from the start of harmful gas removal until the 
readings of the three sampling instruments shall all indicate a carbon 
monoxide concentration of 25 ppm or less shall be recorded.
    (d) Alternate performance tests may be conducted if the tests 
provide the same level of assurance of the harmful gas removal 
component's capability as the tests specified in paragraph (c) of this 
section. Alternate tests shall be specified in the approval 
application.


Sec.  7.509  Approval markings.

    (a) Each approved refuge alternative or component shall be 
identified by a legible, permanent approval marking that is securely 
and conspicuously attached to the component or its container.
    (b) The approval marking shall include the refuge alternative's and 
component's MSHA approval number and expiration date.
    (c) The refuge alternative structure shall provide a conspicuous 
means for indicating an out-of-service status, including the reason it 
is out of service.
    (d) The airlock shall be conspicuously marked with the recommended 
maximum number of persons that can use it at one time.


Sec.  7.510  New technology.

    MSHA may approve a refuge alternative or a component that 
incorporates new knowledge or technology, if the applicant demonstrates 
that the refuge alternative or component provides no less protection 
than those meeting the requirements of this subpart.

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

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

    Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811.

    4. Amend Sec.  75.221 by adding paragraph (a)(12) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  75.221  Roof control plan information.

    (a) * * *
    (12) A description of the roof and rib support necessary for the 
refuge alternatives.
* * * * *
    5. Amend Sec.  75.313 by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  75.313  Main mine fan stoppage with persons underground.

* * * * *
    (f) Any electric-powered refuge alternative component that may be 
operated during fan stoppages shall be intrinsically safe.
    6. Amend Sec.  75.360 by redesignating paragraphs (d) through (g) 
as paragraphs (e) through (h) and adding a new paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  75.360  Preshift examination at fixed intervals.

* * * * *
    (d) The person conducting the preshift examination shall check the 
refuge alternative for damage, the integrity of the tamper-evident seal 
and the mechanisms required to activate the refuge alternative, and the 
ready availability of compressed oxygen and air.
* * * * *
    7. Amend Sec.  75.372 by revising paragraph (b)(11) to read as 
follows:

[[Page 34171]]

Sec.  75.372  Mine ventilation map.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (11) The location of all escapeways and refuge alternatives.
* * * * *
    8. Amend Sec.  75.1200 by revising paragraph (g) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  75.1200  Mine map.

* * * * *
    (g) Escapeways and refuge alternatives;
* * * * *
    9. Amend Sec.  75.1202-1 by revising paragraph (b)(4) to read as 
follows.


Sec.  75.1202-1  Temporary notations, revisions, and supplements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) Escapeways and refuge alternatives designated by means of 
symbols.


Sec.  75.1500  [Removed and reserved]

    10. Remove and reserve Sec.  75.1500.
    11. Amend Sec.  75.1501 by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  75.1501  Emergency evacuations.

    (a) * * *
    (1) 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 locations of the mine 
escapeways and refuge alternatives, the mine communications system, any 
mine monitoring system if used, locations of firefighting equipment, 
the mine's Emergency Response Plan, the Mine Rescue Notification Plan, 
and the Mine Emergency Evacuation and Firefighting Program of 
Instruction.
* * * * *
    12. Amend Sec.  75.1502 as follows:
    A. Redesignate paragraphs (c)(3) through (c)(8) as paragraphs 
(c)(4) through (c)(9).
    B. Add new paragraph (c)(3).
    C. Revise newly designated paragraphs (c)(4)(iv) and (v).
    D. Revise newly designated paragraph (c)(8).
    E. Add paragraph (c)(4)(vi).
    F. Add paragraphs (c)(10) and (c)(11).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  75.1502  Mine emergency evacuation and firefighting program of 
instruction.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) The activation and use of refuge alternatives.
    (4) * * *
    (iv) Switching escapeways, as applicable;
    (v) Negotiating any other unique escapeway conditions; and
    (vi) Using refuge alternatives.
* * * * *
    (8) A review of the mine map; the escapeway system; the escape, 
firefighting, and emergency evacuation plans in effect at the mine; and 
the location of refuge alternatives and abandoned areas.
    (9) * * *
    (10) A summary of the procedures related to constructing and 
activating refuge alternatives; and
    (11) A summary of the procedures related to refuge alternative use.
* * * * *
    13. Amend Sec.  75.1504 by revising paragraphs (b)(3)(ii), 
(b)(4)(ii), and (c), and adding paragraphs (b)(6) and (b)(7) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  75.1504  Mine emergency evacuation training and drills.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) Physically locates and practices using the continuous 
directional lifelines or equivalent devices and tethers, and physically 
locates the stored SCSRs and refuge alternatives;
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) Locating escapeways, exits, routes of travel to the surface, 
abandoned areas, and refuge alternatives.
* * * * *
    (6) Reviewing the checklist for constructing and activating refuge 
alternatives and components.
    (7) Reviewing the procedures for use of the refuge alternatives and 
components.
    (c) Annual expectations training. Over the course of each year, 
each miner shall participate in expectations training that includes the 
following:
    (1) Donning and transferring SCSRs in smoke, simulated smoke, or an 
equivalent environment.
    (2) Breathing through a realistic SCSR training unit that provides 
the sensation of SCSR airflow resistance and heat.
    (3) Construction, where applicable; activation; and use of refuge 
alternatives similar to those in use at the mine, including--
    (i) Construction, where applicable; activation; and operation of 
component systems; and
    (ii) Instruction on when to use refuge alternatives during a mine 
emergency, emphasizing that it is the last resort when escape is 
impossible.
    (4) A miner shall participate in expectations training within one 
quarter of being employed at the mine.
* * * * *
    14. Amend Sec.  75.1505 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  75.1505  Escapeway maps.

    (a) Content and accessibility. An escapeway map shall show the 
designated escapeways from the working sections or the miners' work 
stations to the surface or the exits at the bottom of the shaft or 
slope, refuge alternatives, and SCSR storage locations. The escapeway 
map shall be posted or readily accessible for all miners--
    (1) In each working section;
    (2) In each area where mechanized mining equipment is being 
installed or removed;
    (3) At the refuge alternative; and
    (4) At a surface location of the mine where miners congregate, such 
as at the mine bulletin board, bathhouse, or waiting room.
    (b) Keeping maps current. All maps shall be kept up-to-date and any 
change in route of travel, location of doors, location of refuge 
alternatives, or direction of airflow shall be shown on the maps by the 
end of the shift on which the change is made.
* * * * *
    15. Add Sec. Sec.  75.1506, 75.1507, and 75.1508 to subpart P to 
read as follows:


Sec.  75.1506  Refuge alternatives.

    (a) Each operator shall provide refuge alternatives with sufficient 
capacity to accommodate all persons working underground.
    (1) Refuge alternatives shall provide at least 15 square feet of 
floor space and at least 60 cubic feet of volume per person.
    (2) Refuge alternatives for working sections shall accommodate the 
maximum number of persons that can be expected on or near the section 
at any time.
    (3) Refuge alternatives for outby areas shall accommodate persons 
assigned to work in the outby area.
    (b) Refuge alternatives shall be provided at the following 
locations:
    (1) Between 1,000 feet and 2,000 feet from the working face and 
from locations where mechanized mining equipment is being installed or 
removed;
    (2) Spaced within one-hour travel distances in outby areas where 
persons work such that persons in outby areas are never more than a 30-
minute travel distance from a refuge alternative or safe exit. However, 
the operator may request and the District Manager may approve a 
different location in the Emergency Response Plan (ERP). The operator's 
request shall be based on an assessment of the risk to persons in outby 
areas, considering the following factors:

[[Page 34172]]

proximity to seals; proximity to potential fire or ignition sources; 
conditions in the outby areas; location of stored SCSRs; and proximity 
to the most direct, safe, and practical route to an intake escapeway.
    (c) Roof and rib support for the refuge alternative locations shall 
be specified in the mine's roof control plan.
    (d) The operator shall protect the refuge alternative and contents 
from damage during transportation, installation, and storage.
    (e) A refuge alternative shall be removed from service if 
examination reveals damage that interferes with the functioning of the 
refuge alternative or any component.
    (1) If a refuge alternative is removed from service, the operator 
shall withdraw all persons from the area serviced by the refuge 
alternative, except those persons referred to in section 104(c) of the 
Mine Act.
    (2) Refuge alternative components removed from service shall be 
replaced or be repaired for return to service in accordance with the 
manufacturer's specifications.
    (f) At all times, the site and area around the refuge alternative 
shall be kept clear of machinery, materials, and obstructions that 
could interfere with the activation or use of the refuge alternative.
    (g) Each refuge alternative shall be conspicuously identified with 
a sign or marker as follows:
    (1) A sign or marker made of a reflective material with the word 
``REFUGE'' shall be posted conspicuously at each refuge alternative.
    (2) Directional signs made of a reflective material shall be posted 
leading to each refuge alternative location.


Sec.  75.1507  Emergency response plan; refuge alternatives.

    (a) The Emergency Response Plan (ERP) shall include the following 
for each refuge alternative and component:
    (1) The types of refuge alternatives used in the mine, i.e., a pre-
fabricated self-contained unit; a secure space, constructed in place, 
with an isolated atmosphere; or materials pre-positioned for miners to 
use to construct a secure space with an isolated atmosphere.
    (2) Procedures or methods for maintaining approved refuge 
alternatives and components.
    (3) The rated capacity of each refuge alternative, the number of 
persons expected to use each refuge alternative, and the duration of 
breathable air provided per person by the approved breathable air 
component of each refuge alternative.
    (4) The methods for providing breathable air and removing carbon 
dioxide with sufficient detail of the component's capability to provide 
breathable air over the duration stated in the approval.
    (5) The methods for providing ready backup oxygen controls and 
regulators.
    (6) The methods for providing an airlock and methods for providing 
breathable air in the airlock; except where adequate positive pressure 
is maintained.
    (7) The methods for providing sanitation facilities.
    (8) The methods for harmful gas removal (if necessary).
    (9) The methods for monitoring gas concentrations, including 
charging and calibration of equipment.
    (10) The method for providing lighting sufficient to perform tasks.
    (11) Suitable locations of the refuge alternatives and an 
affirmative statement that the locations are--
    (i) Not within direct line of sight of the working face; and
    (ii) Where feasible, not placed in areas directly across from, nor 
closer than 500 feet radially from, belt drives, take-ups, transfer 
points, air compressors, explosive magazines, seals, entrances to 
abandoned areas, and fuel, oil, or other flammable or combustible 
material storage.
    (b) For a refuge alternative constructed in place, the ERP shall 
specify that--
    (1) The breathable air components shall be approved by MSHA; and
    (2) The refuge alternative can withstand exposure to a flash fire 
of 300 [deg]Fahrenheit (F) for 3 seconds and a pressure wave of 15 psi 
overpressure for 0.2 seconds.
    (c) For refuge alternatives consisting of materials pre-positioned 
for miners to use to construct a secure space with an isolated 
atmosphere, the ERP shall specify--
    (1) The means to store and protect materials from being damaged 
when moved;
    (2) That the refuge alternative can withstand exposure to a flash 
fire of 300 [deg]F for 3 seconds and a pressure wave of 15 psi 
overpressure for 0.2 seconds prior to construction and activation.
    (3) The method to assure the refuge alternative is constructed and 
functional in 10 minutes after a person arrives at the pre-positioned 
materials;
    (4) That all necessary materials have been provided as a self-
contained unit ready to be activated and used within the secure space 
once constructed; and
    (5) The means to assure establishment of approved breathable air in 
the refuge alternative promptly after construction.
    (d) If the refuge alternative sustains persons for only 48 hours, 
the ERP shall detail advanced arrangements that have been made to 
assure that persons who cannot be rescued within 48 hours will receive 
additional supplies to sustain them until rescue. Advance arrangements 
shall include the following:
    (1) Pre-surveyed areas for refuge alternatives with closure errors 
of less than 20,000:1.
    (2) An analysis to indicate that the surface terrain, the strata, 
the capabilities of the drill rig, and all other factors that could 
affect drilling are such that a hole sufficient to provide required 
supplies and materials reliably can be promptly drilled within 48 hours 
of an accident at a mine.
    (3) Permissions to cross properties, build roads, and construct 
drill sites.
    (4) Arrangement with a drilling contractor or other supplier of 
drilling services to provide a suitable drilling rig, personnel and 
support so that a hole can be completed to the refuge alternative 
within 48 hours.
    (5) Capability to promptly transport a drill rig to a pre-surveyed 
location such that a drilled hole would be completed and located near a 
refuge alternative structure within 48 hours of an accident at a mine.
    (6) The specifications of pipes, air lines, and approved fans or 
approved compressors that will be used.
    (7) A method for assuring that within 48 hours, breathable air 
shall be provided.
    (8) A method for assuring the immediate availability of a backup 
source for supplying breathable air and a backup power source for 
surface installations.
    (e) The ERP shall specify that the refuge alternative is stocked 
with the following:
    (1) A minimum of 2,000 calories of food and 2.25 quarts of potable 
water per person per day in approved containers sufficient to sustain 
the maximum number of persons reasonably expected to use the refuge 
alternative for at least 96 hours, or for 48 hours if advance 
arrangements are made under paragraph (d) of this section;
    (2) Manuals for the refuge alternative and components;
    (3) Sufficient quantities of materials and tools to repair 
components; and
    (4) First aid supplies.


Sec.  75.1508  Training and records for examination, maintenance, 
transportation, and repair of refuge alternatives and components.

    (a) Persons who examine, maintain, transport, or repairing refuge

[[Page 34173]]

alternatives and components shall be instructed in how to perform this 
work.
    (1) The operator shall assure that all persons assigned to examine, 
maintain, transport, and repair refuge alternatives and components are 
trained.
    (2) The mine operator shall certify, by signature and date, the 
training of persons who examine, maintain, transport, and repair refuge 
alternatives and components.
    (b) At the completion of each repair, the person conducting the 
maintenance or repair shall make a record of all corrective action 
taken.
    (c) Training certifications and repair records shall be kept at the 
mine for one year.
    16. Add Sec.  75.1600-3 to subpart Q to read as follows:


Sec.  75.1600-3  Communications facilities; refuge alternatives.

    (a) Refuge alternatives shall be provided with a communications 
system that consists of--
    (1) A two-way communication facility that is a part of the mine 
communication system, which can be used from inside the refuge 
alternative; and
    (2) Additional communication system and other requirements as 
defined in the communications portion of the operator's approved 
Emergency Response Plan.

[FR Doc. E8-13565 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-43-P