[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 119 (Thursday, June 19, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35026-35057]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-13631]



[[Page 35025]]

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

Part III





Department of Labor





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



Mine Safety and Health Administration



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



30 CFR Parts 6, 14, 18 et al.



Safety Standards Regarding the Recommendations of the Technical Study 
Panel on the Utilization of Belt Air and the Composition and Fire 
Retardant Properties of Belt Materials in Underground Coal Mining; 
Conveyor Belt Combustion Toxicity and Smoke Density; Proposed Rules

  Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 119 / Thursday, June 19, 2008 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 35026]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mine Safety and Health Administration

30 CFR Parts 6, 14, 18, 48, and 75

RIN 1219-AB59


Safety Standards Regarding the Recommendations of the Technical 
Study Panel on the Utilization of Belt Air and the Composition and Fire 
Retardant Properties of Belt Materials in Underground Coal Mining

AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Proposed Rule, notice of public hearings.

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

SUMMARY: This proposal addresses the recommendations of the Technical 
Study Panel (Panel) on the Utilization of Belt Air and the Composition 
and Fire Retardant Properties of Belt Materials in Underground Coal 
Mining. Section 11 of the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response 
(MINER) Act of 2006 required that this Panel be established. MSHA 
proposes new standards for: Conveyor belt flammability; qualifying 
Atmospheric Monitoring System operators; levels of methane and 
respirable dust in belt entries; airlocks between air courses; minimum 
and maximum air velocities; approval for the use of air from the belt 
entry to ventilate working sections; monitoring and remotely closing 
point-feed regulators; smoke sensors; standardized tactile signals on 
lifelines; replacing point-type heat sensors with carbon monoxide 
sensors; and belt conveyor and belt entry maintenance. Consistent with 
the MINER Act, the proposal includes MSHA's response to the Panel's 
report.

DATES: All comments must be received by midnight eastern standard time 
on September 8, 2008. MSHA will hold four public hearings on August 19, 
August 21, August 26, and August 28, 2008. Details about the public 
hearings are in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be clearly identified with ``RIN 1219-AB59'' 
and may be sent to MSHA by any of the following methods:
    (1) Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments.
    (2) Electronic mail: [email protected]. Include ``RIN 1219-
AB59'' in the subject line of the message.
    (3) Facsimile: (202) 693-9441. Include ``RIN 1219-AB59'' in the 
subject.
    (4) Regular Mail: MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and 
Variances, 1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia 22209-
3939.
    (5) Hand Delivery or Courier: MSHA, Office of Standards, 
Regulations, and Variances, 1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2350, Arlington, 
Virginia 22209-3939. 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 Blvd., Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia. Sign 
in at the receptionist's desk on the 21st floor.
    MSHA maintains a listserve that enables subscribers to receive e-
mail notification when rulemaking documents are published in the 
Federal Register. To subscribe to the listserve, go to http://www.msha.gov/subscriptions/subscribe.aspx.
    Information Collection Requirements: Comments concerning the 
information collection requirements must be clearly identified by ``RIN 
1219-AB59'' as comments on the information collection requirements 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 [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, Director, Office 
of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, 1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 
2350, Arlington, Virginia 22209-3939, [email protected] (e-mail), 
(202) 693-9440 (voice), or (202) 693-9441 (telefax).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The outline of this proposed rule is as 
follows:

I. Public Hearings
II. Introduction
III. Section-by-Section Analysis
    A. Flame-Resistant Conveyor Belt
    1. General
    2. Discussion of Proposed Rule
    B. Fire Prevention and Detection and Approval of the Use of Air 
from the Belt Entry to Ventilate Working Sections
    1. General
    2. Discussion of Proposed Rule
IV. Executive Order 12866
    A. Population-at-Risk
    B. Benefits
    C. Compliance Costs
V. Feasibility
    A. Technological Feasibility
    B. Economic Feasibility
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)
    A. Definition of a Small Mine
    B. Factual Basis for Certification
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    A. Summary
    B. Procedural Details
VIII. Other Regulatory Considerations
    A. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    B. 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
IX. Proposed Rule

I. 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 19, 2008.........................  Salt Lake City, UT 84101........
August 21, 2008.........................  Hilton Suites Lexington Green,    (859) 271-4000
                                           245 Lexington Green Circle,
                                           Lexington, KY 40503.

[[Page 35027]]

 
August 26, 2008.........................  Embassy Suites Charleston, 300    (304) 347-8700
                                           Court St., Charleston, WV 25301.
August 28, 2008.........................  Sheraton Birmingham, 2101         (205) 324-5000
                                           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 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. 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. The hearing 
panel may ask questions of speakers. Formal rules of evidence or cross 
examination will not apply. The presiding official may exercise 
discretion to assure the orderly progress of the hearing and meeting 
and may exclude irrelevant or unduly repetitious material and 
questions. A verbatim transcript of the proceedings will be made a part 
of the rulemaking record. Copies of the transcript will be available to 
the public. The transcript will also be available on MSHA's Home Page 
at http://www.msha.gov, under Statutory and Regulatory Information.
    MSHA will accept post-hearing written comments and other 
appropriate data for the record from any interested party, including 
those not presenting oral statements. Written comments will be included 
in the rulemaking record 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.

II. Introduction

    Section 11 of the MINER Act established the Technical Study Panel 
to provide an independent scientific and engineering review, and issue 
a report with recommendations regarding the use of air from the belt 
entry to ventilate working sections and the composition and fire 
retardant properties of belt materials in underground coal mining. The 
Secretary of Labor chartered the Panel on December 22, 2006 (71 FR 
77069).
    The Panel held five public meetings in Washington, DC; Pittsburgh, 
Pennsylvania; Salt Lake City, Utah; Birmingham, Alabama; and Reston, 
Virginia. The Panel solicited and reviewed comments from the mining 
community at the public meetings, and reviewed extensive material 
provided primarily by MSHA and the National Institute for Occupational 
Safety and Health (NIOSH). In addition, technical experts in mine 
ventilation, conveyor belt composition, and other pertinent areas 
submitted detailed information and made presentations to the Panel. 
Transcripts of the meetings, including technical and scientific 
material, are in the official record, and on MSHA's Web site.
    In conjunction with the public meetings in Utah and Alabama, Panel 
members visited underground coal mines to observe conditions at mines 
that use air from the belt entry to ventilate working sections.
    The Panel deliberated over a nine-month period and conducted its 
final public meeting on September 17-19, 2007, to discuss 
recommendations for its report. The Panel passed 20 recommendations as 
described below by a unanimous vote:
     Recommendation number 1--Conveyor Belt Flammability 
Testing and Approval;
     Recommendation number 2--Other Belt Tests;
     Recommendation number 3--Improved Fire Resistance 
Standards for all Underground Coal Mines;
     Recommendation number 4--Coordinating Belt Testing with 
Other Countries;
     Recommendation number 5--Belt entry and conveyor belt 
maintenance;
     Recommendation number 6--Special requirements for the use 
of belt air;
     Recommendation number 7--Belt air approval recommendation;
     Recommendation number 8--Discontinuing point-type heat 
sensors;
     Recommendation number 9--Smoke sensors;
     Recommendation number 10--Use of diesel-discriminating 
sensors;
     Recommendation number 11--Review of AMS records;
     Recommendation number 12--AMS operator training 
certification;
     Recommendation number 13--Minimum and maximum air 
velocities;
     Recommendation number 14--Escapeways and leakage;
     Recommendation number 15--Lifelines;
     Recommendation number 16--Point-feeding;
     Recommendation number 17--Respirable dust;
     Recommendation number 18--Mine methane;
     Recommendation number 19--Inspections; and
     Recommendation number 20--Research.
    The Panel issued its report on December 20, 2007. A copy of this 
report is available on MSHA's Web site at http://www.msha.gov.
    The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-161, 
December 26, 2007) requires the Secretary to propose regulations 
consistent with the recommendations of the Technical Study Panel, to 
require that:

    [i]n any coal mine * * * belt haulage entries not be used to 
ventilate active working places without prior approval from the 
Assistant Secretary. Further, a mine ventilation plan incorporating 
the use of air coursed through belt haulage entries to ventilate 
active working places shall not be approved until the Assistant 
Secretary has reviewed the elements of the plan related to the use 
of belt air and has determined that the plan at all times affords at 
least the same measure of protection where belt haulage entries are 
not used to ventilate working places.

    Based on the Panel's recommendations, MSHA is proposing new and 
revised safety standards for underground coal mines concerning 15 of 
the 20 recommendations which require rulemaking. The remaining 
recommendations would not require rulemaking.
    This proposal is organized in two parts under Part III below. Part 
III (A) includes proposed requirements for improved flame-resistant 
conveyor belts. Part III (B) includes proposed requirements for fire 
prevention and detection and approval of the use of air from the belt 
entry to ventilate working sections.
    MSHA is also publishing a Request for Information in the Federal 
Register for public comment on criteria for

[[Page 35028]]

testing the toxicity and density of smoke produced from burning 
conveyor belt or similar materials.

III. Section-By-Section Analysis

A. Flame-Resistant Conveyor Belt

1. General
    (a) This proposal addresses Panel Recommendation No. 1--Conveyor 
Belt Flammability Testing and Approval, and Recommendation No. 3--
Improved Fire Resistance Standards for All Underground Coal Mines. To 
address Panel Recommendation No. 2--Other belt tests, MSHA is 
evaluating the drum friction test to determine if it could complement 
the Belt Evaluation Laboratory Test method. This evaluation will occur 
over a two-year period, consistent with the Panel's recommendation.
    The Panel recommended that MSHA revise and repropose the Agency's 
1992 proposed rule on the ``Requirements for Approval of Flame-
Resistant Conveyor Belts.'' The Panel also recommended that MSHA 
require the use of improved flame-resistant conveyor belts in all 
underground coal mines. Consistent with the Panel's recommendations, 
this proposal would require that conveyor belts in underground coal 
mines meet the Agency's proposed Belt Evaluation Laboratory Test 
(BELT). In addition, this proposal incorporates changes in MSHA's 
approval, quality assurance, and audit procedures.
(b) Rulemaking Background
    Existing Sec.  75.1108 requires underground coal mine operators to 
use only MSHA-approved, flame-resistant conveyor belts meeting the 
specifications of Part 18. All existing underground conveyor belts are 
accepted under Schedule 2G. This is a small-scale flame test, 
originated by the former Bureau of Mines of the Department of the 
Interior (Bureau), and conducted in a cubicle chamber, using four six-
inch (15.2 cm) long by one half-inch (1.3 cm) wide belt samples. Each 
sample is subjected to the flame from a small natural gas burner for 
one minute.
    In the late 1980s, MSHA and the Bureau developed a flame-resistance 
test called the Belt Evaluation Laboratory Test (BELT) that measures 
resistance to flame propagation rather than burn time. The BELT method 
consists of a mid-scale laboratory apparatus. Three samples of conveyer 
belt, 60 inches (152.4 cm) long and nine inches (22.9 cm) wide are 
tested. Flame from a natural gas impinged jet burner is applied to the 
test sample for five minutes.
    On January 17, 1989, MSHA announced a public meeting to discuss the 
BELT method. Later that year, MSHA released a study on belt entry 
ventilation. In 1992, MSHA issued a Belt Air Advisory Committee Report. 
Both of these reports emphasized the need for an improved flame-
resistance test that would result in reduced flame propagation of 
conveyor belts.
    On December 24, 1992, MSHA published a proposal to revise the 
existing regulation for testing and acceptance of conveyor belts (53 FR 
61524). On July 15, 2002, the Agency withdrew the proposal (67 FR 
46431). This proposed rule would establish the BELT method for the 
approval of flame-resistant conveyer belts in underground coal mines 
and require that improved conveyor belts be used.
(c) Use of Conveyor Belts in Underground Coal Mines and Fire History
    Conveyor belts used in underground coal mines generally consist of 
rubber-textile compositions, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and combinations 
of rubber covers and solid woven carcass. Rubber belts constructed with 
steel cords or cable are also used. Typical rubber compounds are 
styrene-butadiene (SBR), chloroprene (CR), polybutadiene (BR) and 
copolymer acrylonitrile-butadiene (NBR). The carcass of the conveyor 
belts may be constructed of layered ply materials such as polyester and 
nylon or solid woven material impregnated with PVC. The amount of plies 
can range from 2 to 8 in rubber belts. Belt thickness ranges from about 
\3/8\-inch to over 1-inch and belt width ranges from 36-inches to 96-
inches.
    The average conveyor belt length for both conveyance and return is: 
9,894 feet (3,016 meters) in an average small underground coal mine 
with 1-19 employees; 51,964 feet (15,839 meters) in an average medium-
sized mine with between 20 and 500 employees; and 199,159 feet (60,704 
meters) in an average large mine with over 500 employees.
    MSHA has reviewed fire incident data for conveyor belt entries in 
underground coal mines for the period 1980-2007. These data show that 
fires in conveyor belt entries represent about 15 to 20 percent of all 
underground coal mine fires. Friction at the belt drive and along the 
belt was the ignition source for 36 percent of the 65 conveyor belt 
fires reported. Other sources of belt fires included electrical (13%); 
hot rollers and bearings (10%); cutting and welding (8%); diesel and 
hydraulic (3%); and cause undetermined (30%). Data reveal that fires 
have burned substantial lengths of conveyor belt, as much as 2,000 feet 
(600 meters). Regardless of the ignition source, once a fire starts, a 
belt that has poor flame resistance will spread flames along exposed 
surfaces and eventually ignite other combustibles in the entry, 
including coal.
    European efforts to seek improvements in both flame-resistant 
conveyor belt properties and testing protocols began in the early 
1950s. Similar efforts in the United States were initiated around the 
same time by the Bureau. The Bureau developed a Schedule 28 (November 
9, 1955) for the acceptance of fire-resistant conveyor belts and 
subsequently amended Schedule 28 (December 9, 1957). Schedule 28 
contained a small-scale flame test for acceptance of fire-resistant 
conveyor belt. Schedule 28 was consolidated into Schedule 2G (30 CFR 
Part 18) on March 19, 1968. Existing 30 CFR Part 18.65 establishes the 
small-scale test for the acceptance of fire resistant conveyor belt.
    In the 1980s, MSHA began developing a flame-resistance test for 
conveyor belts that would result in a higher level of flame resistance 
than the ``2G'' test. A large-scale test facility was constructed at 
the Lake Lynn Laboratory by the Bureau and MSHA. The large scale tests 
showed the effect of air flow on belt flammability. These tests were 
conducted over a wide range of air velocities. MSHA used the large-
scale flammability test data to develop the BELT, a laboratory-scale 
flame resistance test.
    MSHA developed the new BELT method to improve the fire resistant 
capability of belt material, and thereby greatly limit flame 
propagation. The BELT measures the length of burned belt on the test 
sample. The BELT is easy to perform, economical, and correlates well 
with large-scale tests. MSHA and the Bureau have performed extensive 
testing of the BELT method. Test results over a 34-month period, based 
on samples of the belt material, reveal that the BELT method is highly 
precise and accurate. Samples from the same belt pass the existing 
Schedule 2G Test, but fail under the new BELT.
2. Discussion of Proposed Rule
    This proposal would establish a new Part 14 that would include 
approval requirements for flame-resistant conveyor belt. It would 
require that improved flame-resistant conveyor belts be used in all 
underground coal mines. The proposal would also make technical and 
conforming changes to Parts 6 and 18.

[[Page 35029]]

Part 14--Approval of Conveyor Belts in Underground Coal Mines

Subpart A--General

    Proposed Sec.  14.1 is derived from existing Sec.  18.1. Part 14 
would establish new flame resistance requirements for MSHA approval of 
conveyor belts for use in underground coal mines. It would also allow 
applicants for approval, approval holders and those seeking extensions 
a one year phase-in period to continue to use the acceptance criteria 
in existing Part 18. During this period, approval holders could apply 
for a Part 18 acceptance or a Part 14 approval. The Agency specifically 
solicits comments on the impact of the one year transition period on 
inventories and associated costs to approval holders.
    Proposed Sec.  14.2 would establish definitions applicable to 
approval of conveyor belts. The proposed definitions are as follows.
    ``Applicant'', derived from existing Sec. Sec.  6.2 and 7.2, would 
refer to an individual or organization that manufactures or controls 
the production of a conveyor belt and who applies to MSHA for approval.
    ``Approval'', derived from existing Sec.  7.2, would replace the 
term ``acceptance'' as defined in existing Sec.  18.2. An approval, 
which would be issued by MSHA, would show that a conveyor belt has met 
the requirements of this Part, and would authorize a marking 
identifying the belt as approved. This is consistent with other MSHA 
approval regulations which define `approved' as the general term which 
indicates that a product has met MSHA's technical requirements.
    ``Extension of approval'', derived from existing Sec.  7.2, would 
be defined as a document issued by MSHA which states that a change to a 
conveyor belt previously approved by MSHA continues to meet the 
requirements of this Part. An extension of approval would authorize the 
continued use of the approval marking after the appropriate extension 
number has been added.
    ``Flame-retardant ingredient'' would be a new term, and means 
material that inhibits ignition or flame propagation.
    ``Flammable ingredient'', would be a new term and would mean 
material that is capable of combustion.
    ``Inert ingredient'', a new term, would mean a material that does 
not contribute to combustion.
    ``Post-approval product audit'', derived from existing Sec.  7.2, 
would be an examination and testing of an approved conveyor belt sample 
to determine if it meets the technical requirements of its approval, 
and has continued to be manufactured as approved.
    ``Similar conveyor belt'', would be a new definition, and would 
apply to a conveyor belt that shares the same cover compound, general 
carcass construction, and fabric type as another approved conveyor 
belt. This definition would assist applicants in providing the 
appropriate information with their applications for approval. Similar 
belts may be considered as part of a given family, and approved under 
the same approval number.
    Proposed Sec.  14.3, derived from Sec.  18.9(a), would limit the 
individuals who may be present during testing and evaluation to MSHA, 
representatives of the applicant, and other persons as agreed upon by 
MSHA and the applicant. This provision is intended to protect 
proprietary information. It is consistent with other MSHA approval 
regulations.
    Proposed Sec.  14.4, derived from Sec. Sec.  7.3 and 18.6, would 
require applicants to follow certain procedures to obtain approval, or 
an extension of an approval, for a flame-resistant conveyor belt. This 
proposal would organize the application procedures into two actions: 
approval and an extension of an approval.
    When requesting approval, proposed Sec.  14.4 would require that 
the applicant submit all information necessary to properly evaluate a 
conveyor belt.
    Proposed paragraph (a), based on existing Sec. Sec.  7.3(a) and 
18.6(a), would specify how and where an applicant would file for MSHA 
approval or extension. This procedure includes mail, online, and fax 
transmission.
    Proposed Sec.  14.4(b) would contain information the applicant 
would need to submit concerning the identification and construction of 
a conveyor belt. Each application would need to include this 
information, except any information submitted in a prior approval 
application need not be resubmitted. An application would address 
either a single specific construction, or multiple-ply construction 
consisting of the same cover compound and carcass construction varying 
only by the number of plies and fabric weight. In addition, if approval 
of multiple-ply construction is requested, the minimum and maximum 
number of plies both with thinnest-specified cover thickness and 
heaviest-specified fabric weight must be tested. These proposed 
requirements for conveyor belt applications are based on existing Sec.  
18.6(c).
    Proposed Sec.  14.4(b)(1) would require a technical description of 
the conveyor belt. This information would include: Trade name 
(specification or code numbers) or identification number; cover 
compound type and designation number; belt thickness and thickness of 
top and bottom covers; presence and type of skim coat; presence and 
type of friction coat; carcass construction and fabric; presence and 
type of breaker or floated plies; and the number, type, and size of 
cords or fabric for metal cord belts.
    Proposed paragraph Sec.  14.4(b)(2) would require information on 
the type of material comprising the conveyor belt (for example, 
styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), chloroprene, 
composite, or steel cable). Formulation information on the compounds in 
the Conveyor belt could be shown by specifying each: (1) Ingredient by 
its chemical name along with its percentage (weight) and tolerance or 
percentage range; or (2) flame-retardant ingredient by its chemical or 
generic name with its percentage and tolerance or percentage range, or 
its minimum percent. The applicant would need to list each flammable 
ingredient by chemical, generic, or trade name along with the total 
percentage of all flammable ingredients. In addition, the applicant 
would need to list each inert ingredient by chemical, generic, or trade 
name along with the total percentage of all inert ingredients.
    Proposed Sec.  14.4(b)(3) would require that the applicant submit, 
as part of the application, the name, address, and telephone number of 
the applicant's representative responsible for answering any questions 
regarding the application. The applicant may also wish to include the 
representative's electronic mail (e-mail) address.
    Proposed Sec.  14.4(b)(4) would require that an application for 
approval of a conveyor belt similar to a previously approved conveyor 
belt include an explanation of any changes from the existing approval, 
along with the approval number of the belt being changed. Documentation 
which is listed in the prior approval would not need to be resubmitted.
    MSHA's evaluation of whether a belt is similar will determine if 
the application has to be processed as an extension of approval or a 
new approval. For example, if a manufacturer submits a 5-ply belt that 
is identical, except in number of plies, to a family of belts with 3, 
4, and 6 plies that has been previously approved, MSHA would likely 
grant an extension of approval to the 5-ply belt without additional 
testing.
    After receipt of an approval, if the applicant requests an 
extension of

[[Page 35030]]

approval for the original conveyor belt, the applicant would not be 
required to resubmit documentation duplicative of previously submitted 
information. Similarly, only information related to changes in the 
previously approved conveyor belt would be required.
    Proposed Sec.  14.4(c) would require that any changes to the 
documentation of technical requirements of a previously approved flame-
resistant conveyor belt must be approved by MSHA prior to implementing 
the change. This requirement would avoid unauthorized changes being 
made that could affect the flame-resistant properties of the conveyor 
belt.
    Proposed Sec.  14.4(c)(1) would require that each application for 
an extension of approval include the MSHA-assigned approval number of 
the conveyor belt which most closely resembles the new one. Proposed 
Sec.  14.4(c)(2) would require that the application contain a 
description of any changes from the existing approval. This information 
would include the MSHA-assigned approval number for the conveyor belt 
for which the extension is sought; and a description of the proposed 
change to the conveyor belt. Proposed Sec.  14.4(c)(3) would require 
the name, address, and telephone number of the applicant's 
representative responsible for answering any questions regarding the 
application. The applicant should also include the representative's e-
mail address.
    Proposed Sec.  14.4(d) would permit MSHA to make a determination if 
additional information, samples, and testing are needed to evaluate the 
application. Additional samples may be requested by MSHA as a result of 
erroneous test results. This provision would also allow a statement by 
an applicant to explain reasons why flame testing of a specific 
conveyor belt may not be necessary.
    Proposed Sec.  14.4(e), based on existing Sec.  18.6(a)(3), would 
permit an applicant to request testing and evaluation using non-MSHA 
product safety standards that have been determined by the Agency to 
provide at least the same degree of protection as the MSHA product 
approval requirements under this Part. This proposed paragraph would 
permit MSHA to approve products using the equivalent program authorized 
in Sec.  6.20, entitled ``MSHA acceptance of equivalent non-MSHA 
product safety standards.''
    Proposed Sec.  14.4(f), consistent with existing Sec.  18.6(a), 
would inform applicants that fees for services will be charged in 
accordance with Part 5, entitled: Fee for Testing, Evaluation, and 
Approval of Mining Products.
    Proposed Sec.  14.5 is new and would require, upon request by MSHA, 
the submission of three pre-cut, unrolled, flat samples of conveyor 
belt, 60 inches (152.4 cm) long by 9 inches (22.9 cm) wide, for flame 
testing. The proposed laboratory-scale test for flame resistance 
requires testing of three samples to determine acceptable performance. 
The proposal would require pre-cut and unrolled flat samples which can 
be mounted for testing. Samples submitted in an uncut, rolled (coiled) 
state, require additional time to be cut and flattened for subsequent 
mounting. MSHA uses the word ``pre-cut'' to inform the applicant that 
the samples would need to be sent to MSHA already cut to the required 
sample size.
    Curling of samples can cause erroneous test results and has, at 
times, presented a problem during testing. MSHA has determined that 
most of this curling effect results from the conveyor belts having a 
``pre-set'' from being rolled prior to testing. These proposed 
requirements, along with the proposed required preconditioning of 
samples serve to minimize curling of samples. The requirement to submit 
samples for testing is derived from existing Sec.  18.6(i). However, 
the requirement for the number and dimension of samples is specific to 
the BELT method.
    Proposed Sec.  14.6, based on existing Sec.  18.10, would address 
requirements related to the approval. Proposed Sec.  14.6(a), would 
require that MSHA issue a notice of approval upon the successful 
completion of the Agency's investigation. The notice of approval would 
be accompanied by a list of documentation and related material, 
covering the details of design and construction of the conveyor belt 
upon which the approval is based. If approval is denied, MSHA will 
notify the applicant of the reasons for the denial.
    Proposed Sec.  14.6(b), based on existing Sec.  18.10(c), would 
require that an applicant not advertise or otherwise represent a 
conveyor belt as approved until MSHA's notice of approval is received. 
To do otherwise would be a violation of MSHA standards and regulations.
    Proposed Sec.  14.7, based on existing Sec. Sec.  7.6 and 18.11(c), 
would provide for marking of approved conveyor belts and retention of 
initial sales records.
    Proposed Sec.  14.7(a) would specify that approved conveyor belts 
be marketed only under the name specified in the approval.
    Proposed Sec.  14.7(b), based on Sec.  18.65(f), would require 
conveyor belts to be legibly and permanently marked with the assigned 
MSHA approval number for the service life of the product. The letters 
and numbers of the approval marking would need to be at least \1/2\ 
inch in size. Also, the approval marking would have to be placed at 
intervals not to exceed 60 feet (18.3 meters) and repeated at least 
once every foot (30.5 centimeters) across the width of the belt. MSHA 
proposes this marking method since a conveyor belt's edges can wear as 
it passes along the conveyor framework, causing fraying. Fraying of 
conveyor belts, which may occur during normal use, can cause the 
approval markings on belts to become illegible or worn. Relocating the 
markings from the edge of the belt to across its width would permit 
identification of the conveyor belt for a longer time. This method 
would also enable better identification of conveyor belts cut from 
larger to smaller widths, or where worn edges are trimmed.
    Proposed Sec.  14.7(c) would provide that where the construction of 
a conveyor belt does not permit marking as prescribed in proposed 
paragraph (b), other permanent marking may be accepted by MSHA. This 
proposed provision would allow alternatives for marking conveyor belts.
    Proposed Sec.  14.7(d) is new, and would require that the applicant 
maintain sales records for 5 years following the initial sale of any 
approved conveyor belt. Information needed on initial sales would be: 
The sale date, the customer name and address, and the belt 
identification on a slab, batch or lot basis. MSHA proposes a five-year 
retention period to conform to MSHA's audit cycle. This proposed time-
frame period would also cover the period in which any potentially 
hazardous defects might be found.
    MSHA requests comments on the 5-year retention period for retaining 
sales records.
    The proposal does not specify the format in which the record has to 
be maintained. MSHA believes that this recordkeeping provision would 
impose a minimal burden because most manufacturers will use existing 
records to fulfill this requirement.
    Proposed Sec.  14.8 would include requirements for a manufacturer's 
ongoing quality assurance program. MSHA believes testing is essential 
to maintain the high level of flame resistance required for conveyor 
belts in underground coal mines. The specific provisions are new for 
conveyor belts, they are derived from existing Sec.  7.7.
    Proposed Sec.  14.8(a) would require approval holders to perform a 
flammability evaluation on a sample of: (1) Each batch, lot, or slab of 
conveyor belts; or (2) inspect or test a sample of each batch or lot of 
the materials that

[[Page 35031]]

contribute to the flame-resistance characteristic. This will assure 
that the finished conveyor belt slab continues to meet the test for 
flame resistance.
    Proposed Sec.  14.8(b) would require that instruments used for the 
quality assurance inspection and testing be calibrated according to the 
instrument manufacturer's specifications. Under the proposal, 
instruments must be calibrated using calibration standards set by the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of 
Commerce or other nationally or internationally recognized standards. 
The proposal also would require that the instruments used be accurate 
to at least one significant figure beyond the desired accuracy. This 
calibration sequence is consistent with the procedure under existing 
Sec.  7.7.
    Proposed Sec.  14.8(c) would require that approval holders control 
all production to assure that the conveyor belt is continuously 
manufactured as approved. This proposal would require each approval 
holder to implement procedures to assure that the product conforms to 
the approval specifications.
    Proposed Sec.  14.8(d) would require approval holders to 
immediately notify the MSHA Approval and Certification Center of any 
information that a conveyor belt has been distributed which does not 
meet the specifications of the approval. Notification can be by 
telephone, e-mail, or facsimile transmission. The notification must 
include a description of the nature and extent of the problem, the 
locations where the conveyor belt has been distributed, and the 
approval holder's plans for corrective action. Corrective action may 
include recalling the conveyor belt or restricting its use pending 
resolution of the defect.
    Proposed Sec.  14.9, derived from existing Sec.  18.9, would 
address the disclosure of information on conveyor belts tested and 
evaluated under part 14. Under the proposal, MSHA intends to treat 
information on product material, specifications, and processes as 
potentially protectable under exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information 
Act (FOIA). Exemption 4 exempts from disclosure ``trade secrets and 
commercial or financial information'' obtained from an outside source 
and ``privileged or confidential.'' 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). Under the 
Department's regulations at 29 CFR 70.26, Business information, MSHA 
would notify the applicant of any FOIA request seeking information 
submitted by the applicant under this proposal. The applicant then 
would have a reasonable period of time in which to object to 
disclosure. An objecting applicant must submit a ``detailed written 
statement'' showing ``why the information is a trade secret or 
commercial or financial information that is privileged or 
confidential.'' 29 CFR 70.26(e). MSHA would consider the applicant's 
objections in deciding whether to disclose the information. If MSHA 
determines that the FOIA requires disclosure over the applicant's 
objections, MSHA would notify the applicant of the documents to be 
disclosed prior to the disclosure date (unless MSHA learns that the 
material already has been made public lawfully). 29 CFR 70.26(f), (g). 
Under 29 CFR 70.26(b), when submitting documents, applicants should 
identify the documents they wish to protect by marking them (such as 
stamping each page ``Confidential''). MSHA notes that it has no 
authority under the FOIA to withhold applicant documents requested by a 
Congressional oversight committee.
    Proposed Sec.  14.10, derived from existing Sec. Sec.  6.10 and 
7.8, would provide a mechanism for MSHA to periodically audit approved 
conveyor belts.
    Proposed Sec.  14.10(a) would provide that approved conveyor belts 
would be subject to periodic audits by MSHA to determine conformity 
with the technical requirements upon which the approval was based. MSHA 
would select representative conveyor belts to be audited. Upon request 
to MSHA, the approval holder may obtain any final audit report.
    Proposed Sec.  14.10(b) would require that approval holders make 
conveyor belts available to MSHA, at no cost, for audit upon request. 
Three samples sized according to Sec.  14.5 would be required. Audits 
may be conducted no more than once a year, except for cause. The 
approval holder may observe any tests conducted during the audit.
    Proposed Sec.  14.10(c) would require manufacturers to allow MSHA 
to conduct an audit for cause at any time the Agency believes that an 
approved product is not in compliance with the technical requirements 
of the approval. Audits would allow MSHA to determine whether products 
are being manufactured as approved. MSHA would select the product, and 
may, if necessary, obtain products from sources other than the 
manufacturer such as distributors or wholesalers.
    In determining which products to audit, MSHA will consider a 
variety of factors such as whether the manufacturer has previously 
produced the product or similar products, whether the product is new or 
part of a new product line, or whether the product is intended for a 
unique application or limited distribution. Other considerations could 
include product complexity, the manufacturer's previous product audit 
results, extent of the product's use in the mining community, and the 
time elapsed since the last audit or since the product was first 
approved.
    There are other circumstances or causes when additional audits may 
be necessary to verify compliance with the technical requirements. 
Examples of such circumstances would include complaints about the 
safety or performance of a product, product changes that have not been 
approved, audit test results that warrant further testing to determine 
compliance, and evaluation of corrective action taken by an approval 
holder.
    If discrepancies are discovered during an audit, the Agency will 
provide the approval holder an opportunity to present information. If 
the approval holder cannot demonstrate compliance, MSHA may initiate 
revocation proceedings under the revocation provisions of this 
proposal.
    Proposed Sec.  14.11 is derived from existing Sec. Sec.  18.16, 
7.9, and 15.11, and addresses the revocation procedure and rights of 
approval holders.
    Proposed Sec.  14.11(a) provides that MSHA may revoke an approval 
when a conveyor belt fails to meet the technical requirements of the 
approval, or creates a danger or hazard when used in an underground 
coal mine.
    MSHA's practice is to treat approval holders as ``licensees'' under 
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. 558). Consistent with 
this practice, proposed Sec.  14.11(b) would provide that approval 
holders be given certain due process considerations prior to revocation 
of an approval. These considerations include being provided with (1) a 
written notice of the Agency's intent to revoke a product approval; (2) 
an explanation of the reasons for the proposed revocation; and (3) an 
opportunity to demonstrate or achieve compliance with the technical 
requirements for approval.
    Proposed Sec.  14.11(c) would provide the approval holder the 
opportunity for a hearing to appeal MSHA's decision.
    Proposed Sec.  14.11(d) would provide for immediate suspension of 
the approval of the product without prior written notice to the 
approval holder if the product poses an imminent danger or hazard to 
the safety or health of miners. The suspension may continue until 
revocation proceedings are completed. Consistent with MSHA's practice, 
once an approval is suspended, MSHA would notify the public of this 
action through recall notices on its Web site at http://www.msha.gov. 
All affected products

[[Page 35032]]

must be removed immediately from underground coal mines, and MSHA would 
initiate enforcement action for failure to do so.
    MSHA believes that it must have the capability to order removal of 
noncompliant belt if an imminent hazard is created. Removal would 
protect miners from potential injury and life-threatening fire hazards.

Subpart B--Technical Requirements

    Flame-resistant conveyor belt would be tested under proposed Sec.  
14.20(a) in accordance with the flame test specified in proposed Sec.  
14.22. This test would assure that conveyor belts are difficult to 
ignite and thereby are highly resistant to flame propagation. MSHA 
recognizes that other tests may exist or be developed in the future 
which could also serve as appropriate for evaluating flame resistant 
qualities of conveyor belt for use in underground coal mines. 
Accordingly, proposed Sec.  14.20(b) would permit an alternate test to 
be used to determine the flame resistance of conveyor belts for 
approval, as long as the alternate test is determined by MSHA to be 
equivalent.
    Once a determination of equivalency is made an alternate test under 
existing Sec.  6.20 and proposed Sec.  14.4(e), MSHA would notify the 
public in the Federal Register. Applicants could choose to have their 
belts tested for approval using the laboratory-scale flame test or the 
equivalent alternate test.
    Proposed Sec.  14.21 would describe the principal parts of the BELT 
apparatus used to flame-test conveyor belts. Copies of drawings which 
depict the test apparatus will be available from MSHA upon request.
    Proposed Sec.  14.21(a) would require a horizontal test chamber 66 
inches (167.6 cm) long by 18 inches (45.7 cm) square (inside 
dimension). The chamber dimensions were established from the large-
scale belt flammability studies. The test chamber is constructed from 1 
inch (2.5 cm) thick Marinite[supreg] I, or equivalent insulating 
material. Marinite[supreg] I was selected because it is a commercially 
available noncombustible insulating material that minimizes thermal 
losses through the walls and is able to withstand repeated test fires. 
The reference to Marinite[supreg] I is not an MSHA endorsement of the 
product. Should minor cracking occur in the Marinite[supreg] I, it can 
be repaired using an appropriate sealant. However, the Marinite[supreg] 
I or equivalent insulating material must be replaced and not repaired 
if the crack or break is across the total thickness.
    Proposed Sec.  14.21(b) would require a 16-gauge (0.16 cm) 
stainless steel duct section, tapering over at least a 24-inch (61 cm) 
length from a 20-inch (51 cm) square cross-sectional area at the test 
chamber connection to a 12-inch (30.5 cm) diameter exhaust duct, or 
equivalent. The interior surface of the tapered duct section would be 
lined with \1/2\ inch (1.27 cm) thick ceramic blanket insulation or 
equivalent insulating material. The use of stainless steel minimizes 
corrosion and the tapered duct section allows a smooth airflow to enter 
the exhaust duct. The tapered duct is lined with ceramic blanket 
insulation to minimize high duct temperatures and thermal expansion.
    Proposed Sec.  14.21(c) requires a U-shaped gas-fueled impinged jet 
burner igniting source. The U-tube measures 12 inches (30.5 cm) long 
and 4 inches (10.2 cm) wide with two parallel rows of 6 jets each. The 
burner jets are slanted so that they point toward each other in pairs 
and the flames from these pairs impinge upon each other. The burner 
fuel is methane or natural gas of suitable purity. A burner unit 
available from the Solarflo[supreg] Corporation, Model U-10 using Model 
Number 640 jets producing 7,500 BTU per hour per jet is suitable to 
comply with these specifications. This burner unit, which is an 
impinged jet burner and is the burner type used as the igniting source 
in the BELT, is listed to assist the public and is not an MSHA 
endorsement of the Solarflo[supreg] product. Any other burner unit 
which meets the proposed specification would be appropriate to be used 
as part of the test apparatus. This burner was referenced because it is 
commercially available and provides a reliable, reproducible ignition 
source that can burn methane or natural gas. The BELT results correlate 
well with the large-scale belt flammability test results when using the 
described burner and gaseous fuel in conjunction with the other 
parameters.
    Proposed Sec.  14.21(d) would require a removable steel rack, 
consisting of 2 parallel rails and supports constructed from slotted 
angle iron, to be used to hold a belt sample. The rack dimensions of 7 
 \1/8\ inches (17.8  0.3 cm) wide, 60  \1/8\ inches (152.4  0.3 cm) long and 5  
\1/8\ inches (12.7  0.3 cm) between the rails are specified 
in the proposal.
    Typically, commercially available, 1 inch (2.5 cm) by 1\3/4\ inch 
(4.4 cm) by \1/8\ inch (0.3 cm) thick angle iron with predrilled \1/4\ 
inch (0.6 cm) diameter holes spaced 1 inch (2.5 cm) apart is used. The 
top surface of the rack is 8  \1/8\ inches (22.9  0.3 cm) from the inside roof of the test chamber. The rack 
materials and dimensions were selected so that the rack adequately 
supports the belt sample and withstands repeated tests with only minor 
warping due to heat while minimizing the rack's thermal mass. The 
distance from the top surface of the rack to the inside roof of the 
test chamber was established based on the comparison of the test 
results and the development of correlation parameters with the large-
scale belt flammability studies.
    The BELT apparatus does not contain any pollution control system 
for exhaust fumes created during flame tests. If an applicant chooses 
to build a test apparatus and perform the BELT for research or quality 
assurance purposes, some type of effluent control may be required to 
meet State and local emission standards. There may be a variety of 
methods and designs that will work to control exhaust fumes without 
affecting the test results. Because different jurisdictions can have 
different air quality standards, one pollution control system may not 
be suitable for all locations. Therefore, each unit should comply with 
applicable environmental regulations.
    Proposed Sec.  14.22 would specify how the test for flame 
resistance of conveyor belts would be conducted. It would provide that 
the test be performed in the required sequence using a flame test 
apparatus meeting the specifications of proposed Sec.  14.21. 
Measurements are rounded to the nearest tenth of a centimeter.
    Small changes in barometric pressure, humidity, and ambient 
temperature should not have a significant effect on the test results. 
Published literature indicates that small changes in atmospheric 
pressure have little or no effect on flame propagation. Variations in 
ambient temperature did not show a trend in either decreasing or 
increasing the burn damage of belts tested. A small increase or 
decrease of relative humidity will not have a significant effect on the 
flame propagation because conveyor belts are typically impervious to 
moisture.
    The proposal addresses those variables that have an appreciable 
effect on the test results in order to maintain consistency in the 
testing method.
    Proposed Sec.  14.22(a) would specify the test procedure sequence 
needed to determine the flame resistance of conveyor belts. The 
technical dimensions and tolerances critical to the proper conduct of 
the test and to maintain consistency in the test method are specified 
in this proposal. Dimensions that have no effect on the test results 
are specified without a tolerance and are indicated as approximate. For 
example, in proposed Sec.  14.22(a)(3), the securing locations for the 
fourth and fifth fastenings are not

[[Page 35033]]

critical and, therefore, the dimensions are specified as approximate. 
However, where dimensions could impact the test results, tolerances for 
the dimensions are given to maintain the consistency of test 
conditions.
    Proposed Sec.  14.22(a)(1) would require that three belt samples 
must be preconditioned by being laid flat at 70  10[deg] F 
(21  5[deg] C) for at least 24 hours prior to the test.This 
would: assure that the samples are at laboratory temperatures, 
facilitate sample mounting, and minimize curling during the test.
    A conveyor belt that has been rolled prior to testing is more 
likely to rebound to the rolled position during testing. This action is 
considered ``curling'' and may lead to erroneous test results. Samples 
which have been rolled prior to testing can develop sufficient curling 
forces to overcome the holding capabilities of the cotter pins 
installed to retain the sample on the rack. Should curling occur, MSHA 
would need to test additional samples in order to assure that reliable 
test results have been obtained. The Agency has determined that the use 
of flat, unrolled samples greatly reduces the occurrence of curling.
    Proposed Sec.  14.22(a)(2) would require that the belt sample be 
placed on the rails of the rack with the load carrying surface facing 
up. If a belt is constructed without having a designated top cover, it 
will be mounted without regard to cover orientation. For example, many 
PVC belts are constructed with a solid woven carcass and the top or 
bottom cover is not designated. Therefore, either side of the belt 
could be mounted as the load-bearing cover. The sample must extend 1 
 \1/8\ inch (2.5  0.3 cm) beyond the front of 
the rails and 1  \1/8\ inch (2.5  0.3 cm) from 
the outer lengthwise edge of each rail.
    This centers the longitudinal axis of the sample along the 
centerline of the rack with the first inch of the sample in the 
ignition area and not in contact with the rack. The 1  \1/
8\ inch (2.5  0.3 cm) overlap that extends beyond the front 
of the rail facilitates ignition of the belt sample by minimizing the 
thermal heat sink created by the sample rack. A greater overlap can 
result in the sample curling or pulling back from the burner during the 
ignition period.
    Proposed Sec.  14.22(a)(3) would require that the belt sample be 
fastened to the rails of the rack by drilling or punching holes along 
the long edges of the sample and using steel washers and cotter pins as 
fasteners. Each washer is typically \3/4\ inch (1.9 cm) square and \1/
16\ inch (0.2 cm) thick with a \3/16\ inch (0.5 cm) diameter hole. A 
washer is placed over each sample hole and a cotter pin is inserted 
through the hole in the belt and rail. The cotter pin is spread apart 
to secure the sample to the rail. The locations of the fasteners were 
chosen so that the majority (6 of 10) would be in the ignition area to 
minimize the belt sample pulling away from the burner, or lifting and 
curling during the ignition period. Specific fastener locations with 
tolerances for holes 4 and 5 were not identified. It is MSHA's 
experience that the exact location of these fasteners is not critical 
to the retention of the sample and does not influence the test results. 
Additional fasteners can be used in the ignition region for belts that 
lift excessively. The fasteners facilitate the secure mounting of the 
belt sample and are too small to influence the test results by heat 
absorption, even if additional fasteners are used.
    Proposed Sec.  14.22(a)(4) would require centering the rack and 
mounted sample in the test chamber with the front end of the sample 6 
 \1/2\ inches (15.2  1.3 cm) from the entrance 
of the chamber. This location reduces the disturbance of the airflow 
entering the test chamber. The location is based on the correlation of 
the BELT results to the results of large-scale belt flammability 
studies.
    Proposed Sec.  14.22(a)(5) would require the airflow passing over 
the belt sample to be 200  20 ft/min (61  6 m/
min) as measured by a 4 inch (10.2 cm) diameter vane anemometer, or 
equivalent device. This anemometer measurement is taken on the inside 
of the chamber on the centerline of the belt 12  \1/2\ 
inches (30.5  1.3 cm) from the entrance of the chamber. The 
airflow and measuring location selected are based on comparison of the 
test results with the large-scale belt flammability studies. MSHA 
identified the variables that affect the conditions of the test, such 
as air velocity and the ambient air and tunnel temperatures while 
conducting several hundred belt flame tests. Therefore, this provision 
would require the airflow passing over the belt sample to be 200  20 ft/min (61  6 m/min).
    Proposed Sec.  14.22(a)(6) would require that, before starting a 
test of each sample, the inner surface temperature of the chamber roof 
be measured at points 6  \1/2\, 30  \1/2\, and 
60  \1/2\ inches (15.2  1.3, 76.2  
1.3, and 152.4  1.3 cm) from the front entrance. A \1/2\ 
inch (1.3 cm) tolerance is added to the location for the temperature 
measurement points in paragraph (a)(6) because this tolerance is needed 
to maintain consistency of the test conditions. The temperature must 
not exceed 95 [deg]Fahrenheit (35 [deg]Centigrade) at any of these 
points with the specified airflow passing through the chamber. The 
temperature of the air entering the chamber during each test of the 
three samples is also required to be not less than 50 [deg]Fahrenheit 
(10 [deg]Centigrade). These temperature limits are specified to 
maintain the repeatability of the test results and to maintain the 
comparison obtained with the large-scale belt flammability studies. An 
upper limit on airflow and a lower limit on the temperature of the air 
entering the test chamber are included as test control parameters. 
These test parameters are designed to assure the test chamber 
temperature meets certain restrictions for each of the three tests.
    Proposed Sec.  14.22(a)(7) would specify that the burner be 
positioned in front of the belt sample's leading edge, so that when 
ignited the flames from the two rows of jets impinge in front of the 
belt's edge and distribute uniformly on the top and bottom surfaces of 
the sample. A \1/8\ inch tolerance was added to the location dimension 
for the burner jets. This tolerance is important because it maintains 
the consistency of the test method. The alignment of the burner 
provides for the uniform heating of the sample, which is necessary to 
maintain the consistency of the test results.
    The exact burner orientation needed to provide uniform distribution 
of flame on the top and bottom surfaces of the test sample may vary 
depending upon the belt sample's thickness. Based upon comparison tests 
and experience gained in developing the BELT procedure, the burner must 
be slanted downward from the vertical, at approximately a 15[deg] 
angle, and located \3/4\  \1/8\ inch (1.9  0.3 
cm) from the front edge of the belt. Slanting of the burner compensates 
for the buoyancy of the burner flames. The appropriate burner alignment 
necessary for uniform distribution of flame may be determined by 
adjustments prior to igniting the samples under test.
    Proposed Sec. Sec.  14.22(a)(8) and (a)(9) would require that, with 
the burner lowered away from the sample, the gas flow to the burner be 
adjusted to 1.2  0.1 standard cubic feet per minute (SCFM) 
(34  2.8 liters per minute) and be maintained at this value 
throughout the 5 to 5.1 minute ignition period. Once the test is 
completed, the flame should be safely extinguished. One standard cubic 
foot is defined as the amount of gas which occupies one cubic foot at 
72 [deg]F and one atmosphere pressure (1 cubic liter at 22 [deg]C and 
101 kilopascal. The specified gas flow provides a stable flame and is 
based on a comparison of the test results with the large-scale belt 
flammability studies.
    After completion of each test, proposed Sec.  14.22(a)(10) would 
require that the undamaged portion across the

[[Page 35034]]

entire width of the sample be determined by examining the tested 
sample. Blistering, without charring, is not considered damage because 
blistering could result from the effects of heat rather than the 
presence of flame. Determining the undamaged portion across the entire 
width of the sample is necessary for specifying acceptable performance 
of the conveyor belt.
    For acceptable belt performance, proposed Sec.  14.22(b) would 
require that each of the three tested samples exhibit an undamaged 
portion across the entire width of the sample length. This criterion is 
based on the correlation of the BELT results to the results of large-
scale belt flammability studies.
    Proposed Sec.  14.23 is intended to facilitate the introduction of 
new technology or new applications of existing technology with respect 
to conveyor belts. This would provide for the approval of a conveyor 
belt which incorporates technology for which the requirements of this 
part are not now applicable.
Conforming Amendments
    This proposal would require conforming amendments to existing 
approval regulations in parts 6 and 18 and safety standards for 
underground coal mines in part 75.

Part 6--Testing and Evaluation by Independent Laboratories and Non-MSHA 
Product Safety Standards

    The definition of ``Equivalent non-MSHA product safety standards'' 
under Sec.  6.2 and the applications for equivalency under Sec.  
6.20(a)(1) would be amended by adding Part 14 (Conveyor Belts in 
Underground Coal Mines) to the list of approval parts affected by this 
proposal. These are administrative and conforming provisions.

Part 18--Electric Motor-Driven Mine Equipment and Accessories

    Part 18 would be amended by removing the term ``conveyor belt'' 
from existing Sec. Sec.  18.1, 18.2, 18.6(a), 18.6(i), 18.9(a) and 
18.65. The revised sections of Part 18 would only relate to acceptance 
of hoses, and existing Sec.  18.6(c) would be removed and reserved. 
MSHA is proposing these conforming amendments to part 18 because 
applications for approval of conveyor belts will be considered only 
under Part 14.

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

Subpart L--Fire Protection

    Proposed Sec.  75.1108 would require the use of improved flame-
resistant conveyor belt in underground coal mines. Under the proposal, 
until one year after publication in the Federal Register, operators 
could use conveyer belts in underground coal mines which are either: 
(1) Approved as flame-resistant under Part 14, or (2) accepted as 
flame-resistant under Part 18. Proposed Sec.  75.1108(b) would require 
that one year after the effective date of the rule, all conveyor belts 
purchased for use in underground coal mines must be approved as flame-
resistant under Part 14.
    Under this proposal, for a period of one year, mine operators would 
have the option of using conveyor belts which have been accepted under 
existing part 18, or have been approved under new part 14.
    After one year, the mine operator would be required to purchase 
only belts meeting the requirements of proposed part 14. Mine operators 
would be permitted to use existing belts until replacement is 
necessary.
    Section 75.1108-1 is removed from the 30 CFR because it is no 
longer needed.

B. Fire Prevention and Detection and Approval of the Use of Air From 
the Belt Entry To Ventilate Working Sections

1. General
    This proposed rule will enhance miner safety and health by 
including improved requirements for the use of air from the belt entry, 
belt maintenance, and fire detection.
    The proposal includes: New procedures to approve the use of air 
from the belt entry to ventilate working sections; replacing point-type 
heat sensors with carbon monoxide systems in all coal mines; 
qualifications for AMS operators; requirements for escapeways; limits 
on respirable dust in the belt entry; maximum and minimum air 
velocities in the belt entry; standardized tactile signals for 
lifelines; use of smoke sensors in mines using air from the belt entry; 
and improved belt entry maintenance.
    The Panel was chartered to make recommendations regarding the 
utilization of air from the belt entry in underground coal mining; 
therefore, many of its recommendations deal with requirements for only 
those mines that use air from the belt entry to ventilate working 
sections. However, the Panel recommended that some requirements should 
be applied to all underground coal mines. These include: Airlock doors 
along escapeways; minimum belt entry air velocity; standardized tactile 
signals for lifelines; maintaining higher ventilating pressures in the 
primary escapeway to the extent possible; replacing point-type heat 
sensors with carbon monoxide sensors for fire detection in belt 
entries; and belt entry maintenance. Consistent with the Panel's 
recommendations, this proposed rule includes provisions applying to 
mines that use air from the belt entry to ventilate working sections, 
as well as to mines that do not.
    As a result of the proposed change to require the use of carbon 
monoxide sensors for fire detection along belt lines in all mines, the 
Agency is proposing to revise several other related provisions. These 
include sensor spacing, establishing a warning level, responses to 
warning and malfunction signals, testing and calibration requirements, 
and minimum air velocity to incorporate the use of carbon monoxide 
sensors.
    The Agency is aware that some mines currently use carbon monoxide 
sensors to monitor the belt entry under granted petitions for 
modification or existing provisions which allow systems equivalent to 
point-type heat sensors. These would be superseded by a final rule, and 
operators would be required to comply with all new requirements.
    This part of the proposal addresses the following Panel 
recommendations:
     Recommendation number 5--Belt entry and conveyor belt 
maintenance;
     Recommendation number 6--Special requirements for the use 
of belt air;
     Recommendation number 7--Belt air approval recommendation;
     Recommendation number 8--Discontinuing point-type heat 
sensors;
     Recommendation number 9--Smoke sensors;
     Recommendation number 10--Use of diesel-discriminating 
sensors;
     Recommendation number 12--AMS operator training 
certification;
     Recommendation number 13--Minimum and maximum air 
velocities;
     Recommendation number 14--Escapeways and leakage;
     Recommendation number 15--Lifelines;
     Recommendation number 16--Point-feeding;
     Recommendation number 17--Respirable dust; and
     Recommendation number 18--Mine methane.

[[Page 35035]]

2. Discussion of Proposed Rule.

Part 48--Training and Retraining of Miners

Subpart B--Training and Retraining of Miners Working at Surface Mines 
and Surface Areas of Underground Mines

Section 48.27(a)--Training of Miners Assigned to a Task in Which They 
Have Had no Previous Experience; Minimum Courses of Instruction
    The Panel recommended that MSHA initiate rulemaking to require the 
qualification and certification of AMS operators. To address Panel 
recommendation 12, MSHA is proposing a revision to existing Sec.  
48.27(a), and adding a new Sec.  75.156.
    Proposed Sec.  48.27(a) would require that miners assigned new work 
tasks as Atmospheric Monitoring System (AMS) operators be trained 
before they perform these duties. MSHA believes that AMS operators must 
have the background, experience, training, and authority to assure that 
proper actions are taken in response to AMS signals, including alerts, 
alarms, and malfunctions, to provide the highest degree of safety to 
all affected miners.
    Existing Sec.  48.27(a) requires that a training plan be approved 
by MSHA for specific tasks, and that the training be provided prior to 
the miner performing those tasks. The Agency is proposing to add AMS 
operators as a specific task to be covered by this provision. AMS 
operators are required only at mines using air from the belt entry to 
ventilate working sections and areas where mechanized mining equipment 
is being installed or removed.

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

Subpart B--Qualified and Certified Persons

Section 75.156--AMS Operator, Qualifications
    Proposed Sec.  75.156(a) would require that to be qualified as an 
AMS operator, a person shall be provided with task training in 
accordance with the mine operator's approved part 48 training plan. 
MSHA recognizes a significant portion of the knowledge necessary is 
mine-specific and must be tailored to conditions at each operation. 
MSHA is proposing that this task training be provided, at each mine 
where the AMS operator performs these duties.
    Current AMS operators must have been provided task training under 
an approved part 48 plan to be considered qualified under Sec.  
75.156(a). To continue to perform the functions of a qualified AMS 
operator after the effective date of a final rule, this training must 
be provided.
    The proposed training requirements would give the Agency oversight 
in the review and approval of the part 48 training plan for AMS 
operators, and allow MSHA inspectors to determine the effectiveness of 
this training. Under the proposal, AMS operators would need to be task 
trained at each mine in which they perform these duties due to 
different AMS designs, variations in ventilation plans and systems, 
complexities of evacuation plan requirements, and uniqueness of the 
mine configurations. MSHA will develop a compliance guide to assist 
mine operators in identifying essential elements to be included in the 
training plan.
    Proposed Sec.  75.156(b) would require that an AMS operator must be 
able to demonstrate to an authorized representative of the Secretary 
that he/she is qualified to perform the assigned tasks. The inspector 
will make a determination about the AMS operators qualifications during 
regular inspections. In making this determination, the inspector would 
ask the AMS operator questions regarding: The responses to AMS signals; 
notification requirements; approved mine plans; recordkeeping 
requirements; and AMS operating requirements. This would assure that 
the AMS operator fully understands how to operate and respond to the 
AMS.
    The Panel also recommended certification or qualification of the 
responsible person, who is required in Sec.  75.1501, to take charge 
during mine emergencies. MSHA addressed training of responsible persons 
in the Agency's final rule on Mine Rescue Teams (73 FR 7636).

Subpart D--Ventilation

Section 75.323--Actions for Excessive Methane
    In Recommendation 18, the Panel stated that methane liberated from 
ribs along the belt, or from the broken coal on the belt, can present 
significant safety hazards. The Panel stated that if methane levels in 
the belt air course are too high to provide dilution of methane 
liberated at the working sections, then the use of the air from the 
belt entry to ventilate a working section should be discontinued.
    To address the Panel's concern, MSHA is considering adding a new 
provision concerning methane levels in the belt entry. While this 
proposal does not contain a specific provision on this issue, MSHA is 
requesting comments on including a requirement in the final rule which 
would limit methane levels in the belt entry when the air from that 
entry is used to ventilate the working section. In making its 
recommendation, the Panel wanted to assure that ventilating in this 
manner would not increase the methane content at the working section. 
This new provision would provide an added margin of safety for miners 
as well as a greater probability that methane would be reduced when the 
air reaches the working section.
    The Panel recommended that the District Manager regularly evaluate 
any working section that has methane readings in the belt entry at or 
above 0.5% methane, measured 200 feet outby the tailpiece of the belt, 
to prevent the gas liberated on a conveyor belt or from the belt entry 
from increasing the methane content at the working section above 1.0%.
    Under the existing standard, the allowable limit for methane in 
belt air courses is 1.0 percent because of the potential fire and 
ignition sources in the belt entry. MSHA believes that this new 
provision would be consistent with the Panel's recommendation, and its 
intent that methane levels in the belt entry be kept to a minimum.
    MSHA is considering including a specific requirement in the final 
rule that the mine operator make changes or adjustments to reduce the 
concentration of methane present in the belt entry as measured 200 feet 
outby the section loading point. At this point in the rulemaking, MSHA 
is considering requiring that operators take action when methane is 
between a range of 0.5 and 1.0 percent. MSHA is soliciting comments on 
the appropriateness of such a standard and on the specific level at 
which changes or adjustments should be made.
    In its existing enforcement program, MSHA measures methane levels 
in the belt air course as part of the regular inspections made at all 
underground coal mines. As suggested by the Panel, MSHA will check the 
methane levels in belt air courses 200 feet outby the section loading 
point to assure that methane levels in the working section are not 
increased as a result of using air from the belt entry.
Section 75.333(c)(4)--Ventilation Controls
    Proposed Sec.  75.333(c)(4) is a new provision that addresses Panel 
Recommendation 14 dealing with airlock doors. High pressure 
differentials on doors can lead to serious injuries to miners opening 
and closing these doors. Providing an airlock between entries provides 
a safe means

[[Page 35036]]

for miners to travel between two air courses. An airlock consists of a 
pair of doors installed in ventilation controls between two air 
courses, which form a pressure equalizing chamber. A miner would open 
the first door, enter the airlock, and close the door. After equalizing 
the pressure, the miner can then open the second door and move into the 
adjacent entry.
    The Panel stated that personnel doors along escapeways should be 
installed to establish an airlock when the static force created by the 
pressure differential exceeds 125 pounds.
    MSHA agrees that there may be instances where the installation of 
an airlock is needed due to hazards associated with safely opening and 
closing personnel doors where high pressure differentials exist. The 
need for safe access is critical during a mine emergency evacuation 
when miners must move quickly to adjacent entries.
    Proposed Sec.  75.333(c)(4) would require an airlock be established 
where the air pressure differential between air courses creates a 
static force exceeding 125 pounds on closed personnel doors along 
escapeways. MSHA specifically solicits comments on other suitable 
pressures.
    The Panel recommended a standard based upon the force on the 
personnel door of 125 pounds. This force on any specific door is 
dependent upon the pressure differential across the ventilation 
control, and the surface area of the personnel door. For the same 
pressure differential, the force required to open a personnel door 
increases proportionately with surface area. Mine operators may have 
alternatives to establishing airlocks, including reducing the size of a 
personnel door, providing a flap, or sliding door, which may reduce the 
static pressure to below 125 pounds. Reducing the size of a personnel 
door may lower the static pressure to below 125 pounds.
    In order to calculate the force exerted by a pressure differential, 
the pressure differential and door dimensions must first be determined. 
As reflected in the Panel's example, a 125 pound force limitation on a 
3-foot by 4-foot door would be created by a pressure differential of 
2.0 inches of water. A 3-foot by 4-foot personnel door has an area of 
1728 square inches (3' x 4' = 12 square feet x 144 in2/
ft2 = 1728 square inches). For a force of 125 pounds, the 
distribution is 0.0725 pounds per square inch (125 lb/1728 
in2= 0.0725 psi). Using the conversion factor, 1 psi = 27.68 
inches of water, the equivalent pressure differential can be calculated 
to be 2.0 inches of water (0.0725 psi x 27.68 in. H2O/psi = 
2.0 inches of water).
    The following table shows the door sizes and associated pressure 
differentials which create a 125 pound force:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Pressure
                 Door area, square feet                    differential,
                                                            inches H2O
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.......................................................             6.0
6.......................................................             4.0
9.......................................................             2.7
10......................................................             2.4
12......................................................             2.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency solicits comments on the number of airlocks that would 
be required under this provision and the associated cost.
Section 75.350--Belt Air Course Ventilation
    Proposed Sec.  75.350(a)(2) would include a new requirement that 
the minimum air velocity in the belt entry be at least 50 feet per 
minute. MSHA has included this new requirement because of proposed 
Sec.  75.1103-4 (fire detection systems) which, consistent with the 
Panel's recommendation, would prohibit point-type heat sensors for 
early-warning and detection of conveyor belt fires, and require the 
carbon monoxide fire sensor systems in all belt entries.
    When point-type heat sensor (PTHS) systems are used for fire 
detection, no minimum velocity in the belt entry is needed because the 
sensors are heat-activated. When carbon monoxide sensors are used, a 
minimum air velocity of 50 feet per minute is necessary to assure that 
carbon monoxide gas produced by a fire will be carried by the air 
current to the downwind sensors in a timely manner. This minimum 
velocity has been required for over two decades in mines using carbon 
monoxide sensors for fire detection, and has been shown to provide 
effective early warning.
    Under the proposal, lower velocities could be requested by the mine 
operator in the ventilation plan in areas where the minimum velocity 
cannot be maintained. Where the District Manager approves such a plan, 
carbon monoxide sensor spacing would have to be reduced to no greater 
than 350 feet. NIOSH research and Agency experience show that the 
reduced spacing is necessary to assure carbon monoxide resulting from a 
fire is moved quickly from a fire to downwind sensors.
    Proposed Sec.  75.350(b) addresses Panel Recommendation 7, which 
states that MSHA should evaluate, as part of the approval of the mine 
ventilation plan, the safety of the use of air in the belt entry to 
ventilate working sections. The Panel further stated that the District 
Manager must take special care to evaluate whether the air from the 
belt entry can be routed to the working face in a manner that is safe 
for all miners involved.
    Under the proposal, MSHA would revise existing Sec.  75.350(b) to 
require that the use of air from a belt entry to ventilate a working 
section be permitted only when evaluated and approved by the District 
Manager in the ventilation plan. Under the proposal, the mine operator 
would have to provide information in the plan that the use of air from 
the belt entry affords at least the same measure of protection where 
belt haulage entries are not used to ventilate working places. The mine 
operator should include and the District Manager would consider 
technical reasons to use air from the belt entry as an intake air 
source for the section. These reasons include dilution of methane gases 
and respirable coal mine dust, improved balancing of ventilation 
pressures between entries to minimize contamination of escapeways, and 
reduced ground control hazards. In developing cost estimates for the 
Agency's Preliminary Regulatory Economic Analysis, MSHA assumed that 
mines currently using belt air would continue to use belt air under the 
proposal. In making a determination as to whether to approve the plan, 
the District Manager will evaluate all of the conditions in the mine 
and the operator's information.
    Under the proposal, MSHA would allow a 3-month delayed compliance 
date for mine operators to submit a revision of the ventilation plan to 
the District Manager. Failure to submit a revised ventilation plan 
would result in enforcement action by the Agency.
    MSHA will evaluate revisions to the mine ventilation plans 
consistent with the existing policy and procedure for plan approval. 
The Agency will approve those plans and revisions that assure the use 
of air from the belt entry to ventilate working sections affords at 
least the same measure of protection where belt haulage entries are not 
used to ventilate working places. The District Manager will notify the 
operator in writing of the approval or denial of approval of a proposed 
ventilation plan or proposed revision. A copy of this notification will 
be sent to the representative of miners by the District Manager. If the 
District Manager denies approval of a proposed plan or revision, the 
District Manager will notify the operator, in writing, of the 
deficiencies and provide an opportunity for discussion with the 
District Manager. The District Manager will also notify the operator of 
the

[[Page 35037]]

deadline for submitting the required information.
    If the operator does not respond by the deadline, or if issues 
cannot be resolved through discussion, the District Manager will send a 
second letter notifying the operator: (1) That the plan can not be 
approved; (2) of the final deadline for submitting any required 
information; and (3) that after that deadline, the plan will be 
revoked. If the operator does not submit the required information, the 
District Manager would send a letter notifying the operator that the 
plan is revoked. Revocation would not be effective until completion of 
current mining.
    Operating after the revocation date is a violation of the standard 
requiring an approved plan. A citation would be issued for failure to 
have an approved plan, as required by the ventilation standard. MSHA 
solicits comments on this provision. The Agency is particularly 
interested in comments related to circumstances in which the District 
Manager does not approve the continued use of belt air to ventilate 
active workings.
    MSHA recognizes that there are potential sources of fire in belt 
conveyor entries, and that the use of air from the belt entry to 
ventilate working sections can result in contaminants from a fire being 
carried to the working section. The Agency also recognizes that there 
may be technical reasons to use air from the belt entry as an intake 
air source for the section. These reasons include dilution of methane 
gases and respirable coal mine dust, and improved balancing of 
ventilation pressures between entries to minimize contamination of 
escapeways.
    Based on Agency experience, MSHA has determined that ground control 
hazards may require a reduction in the number of entries developed on a 
working section, as well as the use of air from the belt entry to 
supplement the intake air quantity. Under the proposal, the District 
Manager will have the authority to approve the use of air in the belt 
entry to ventilate the working section only in sections developed with 
three or more entries. Like the existing standard, a petition for 
modification will be required for a mine developing sections with two 
entries to use air from the belt entry to ventilate the working section 
or to put the belt in the return air course.
    To address the hazards associated with the use of belt entry air, 
an operator's request to use air from the belt entry to ventilate the 
working section must include additional protections for the safety of 
miners in the event of a fire in that entry. Under the existing 
standards, these protections include an early-warning fire detection 
system that will rapidly alert miners to a fire in the belt entry and 
allow time to escape; training for miners on required actions when an 
alert or alarm occurs; limiting to fifty percent the amount of air that 
can be delivered to the section from the belt entry; and monitoring of 
carbon monoxide levels upwind of point-feed regulators. Consistent with 
the Panel's recommendations, the Agency is proposing additional 
requirements that the District Manager would consider when approving a 
ventilation plan to allow the use of air from a belt entry to ventilate 
the working section.
    Under the existing Sec.  75.350(b)(3), the average concentration of 
respirable dust in the belt air course, when used as a section intake 
air course, must be maintained at or below 1.0 mg/m3. 
Proposed Sec.  75.350(b)(3) would additionally require that where 
miners on the working section are on a reduced respirable coal mine 
dust standard that is below 1.0 mg/m3, the average 
concentration of respirable dust in the belt entry must be at or below 
the lowest applicable respirable dust standard on that section.
    In Recommendation 17, the Panel stated that respirable coal mine 
dust concentrations in the air coursed through a belt conveyor entry, 
and used to ventilate working sections, should be as low as feasible 
and must not exceed the existing regulated concentration of 1.0 mg/
m3. The Panel also stated that District Managers should have 
the authority to require improvements in dust control in the belt entry 
if the dust concentration exceeds an 8-hour TWA of 1.0 mg/m3 
or raises the concentration in that section above the exposure limit.
    Reduced standards are frequently established on working sections 
due to presence of respirable quartz. The exposure limit for respirable 
coal mine dust is 2.0 mg/m3 when quartz levels are five 
percent or less. This standard is reduced when respirable dust in the 
mine atmosphere contains more than five percent quartz. Reduced 
standards are computed by dividing the percent of quartz measured in 
the mine atmosphere into the number ten. For example, if the mine 
atmosphere contains 20 percent quartz, the reduced standard would be 
0.5 mg/m3 (10/20 = 0.5 mg/m3). The purpose of 
reduced standards is to limit miner exposure to respirable quartz.
    This proposal assures that the respirable coal mine dust exposure 
of miners on the working section would not be increased by the use of 
air from the belt entry. For example, if the standard for the 
continuous miner operator (the designated occupation) is 2.0 mg/
m3 and the reduced standard for the roof bolter on the same 
working section (a designated area) is 0.8 mg/m3, the 
average concentration of respirable dust in the belt entry used to 
ventilate that working section could not exceed 0.8 mg/m3. 
This is because 0.8 mg/m3 is below 1 mg/m3 and is 
the lowest applicable respirable dust standard on the section.
    If a mine operator is unable to effectively reduce the respirable 
dust levels in the belt entry to meet this proposed requirement, the 
District Manager would have the authority to revoke the ventilation 
plan which had allowed the use of air from the belt entry to ventilate 
the working section.
    MSHA believes that technology is available to effectively lower 
respirable dust levels in the belt entry. Because a principal source of 
respirable dust is at belt transfer points, technologies such as 
improved water sprays may reduce dust concentrations. If a mine 
operator reduces the air velocity in the belt entry, this could result 
in less scouring and lower respirable dust concentrations. As the Panel 
indicated, the operator should implement improved engineering controls 
whenever possible, or use air from another intake air course.
    The Agency solicits comments on this provision for assuring that 
air from the belt entry does not increase miners' exposure to 
respirable coal mine dust.
    Proposed Sec. Sec.  75.350(b)(7) and (b)(8) are new provisions to 
address Recommendation 13. The Panel recommended minimum and maximum 
air velocities in belt entries for mines using air from belt entries to 
ventilate working sections. The Panel recommended a minimum velocity of 
100 feet per minute, and a maximum of 1,000 feet per minute in the belt 
entry, but acknowledged that there are situations where these 
velocities may be difficult to maintain. For this reason, the Panel 
recommended allowing the District Manager to approve exceptions to the 
minimum and maximum velocities.
    In its report, the Panel provided three reasons for requiring a 
minimum velocity of 100 feet per minute: Improve the response time for 
fire detection; reduce the possibility of methane layering; and 
mitigate underground fog formation. The Panel recommended limiting the 
maximum velocity to 1,000 feet per minute to address physical 
discomfort to workers when air from the belt entry is used to ventilate 
working sections. Also, according to the Panel, when air from the belt 
entry is used to ventilate working sections, increased

[[Page 35038]]

velocity will result in a greater entrainment of dust particles, 
resulting in a need to limit the velocity.
    Consistent with the Panel's recommendations, proposed Sec.  
75.350(b)(7) would require a minimum air velocity in the belt entry of 
100 feet per minute. Proposed Sec.  75.350(b)(8) would require a 
maximum air velocity of 1,000 feet per minute in the belt entry.
    In its report, the Panel noted that it may be difficult to achieve 
minimum air velocities in locations outby point-feed regulators, and 
where the air meets a partial obstruction like an airway constriction 
at an overcast or undercast. MSHA believes that additional areas where 
minimum air velocities may be hard to achieve include where additional 
air is added to the belt air course, and in areas where entry height is 
exceptionally high.
    Consistent with the Panel's recommendation, the proposal provides 
that the District Manager may approve exceptions to the minimum and 
maximum velocities based on specific mine conditions. These exceptions 
would be permitted where reductions to sensor spacing or alert and 
alarm levels are made to assure the fire detection capabilities of the 
AMS are maintained. In developing their ventilation plans, mine 
operators should use the criteria in NIOSH research (RI 9380) to 
determine appropriate alert and alarm levels.
    Proposed Sec. Sec.  75.350(d)(1) and (d)(7) address Recommendation 
16. The Panel recommended that for mines using air from the belt entry 
to ventilate working sections and areas where mechanized mining 
equipment is being installed or removed, where possible, a second 
carbon monoxide sensor be installed in the primary escapeway 1,000 feet 
upwind of the sensor required by the existing standard. The Panel also 
recommended that, when these sensors detect alert or alarm levels of 
carbon monoxide and the mine has designated the belt as the alternate 
escapeway, the AMS operator should have the ability and authority to 
remotely close or open the point-feed regulator after consulting with 
the responsible person designated by the mine operator to take charge 
during mine emergencies.
    MSHA is aware that point-feeding air from the primary escapeway to 
the belt entry designated as the alternate escapeway can present 
significant problems for miners who must evacuate the mine due to a 
fire in the primary escapeway.
    Proposed Sec.  75.350(d)(1) would require a second carbon monoxide 
sensor to be installed 1,000 feet upwind of the point-feed regulator, 
unless the mine operator requests a lesser distance be approved by the 
District Manager in the mine ventilation plan based on mine-specific 
conditions. The proposal would allow the District Manager to approve a 
lesser distance in the ventilation plan, dependent upon mine 
conditions. For example, it may be necessary to request a lesser 
distance near intake shafts where the distance from the point-feed 
regulator to the bottom of the shaft may be less than 1,000 feet.
    The second sensor would monitor the primary escapeway for fire. 
Agency experience suggests this is possible in most cases since these 
regulators are typically near the mouth of development panels or deep 
into the mains of the mine.
    MSHA believes that this proposal would expedite initiation of 
escape in the case of a fire or other emergency. Under the proposal, 
fire in the primary escapeway would be detected before contaminants 
would be allowed to inundate the secondary escapeway. This early-
warning would provide the AMS operator and responsible person with 
additional time to assess potential hazards and determine necessary 
corrective actions.
    Proposed Sec.  75.350(d)(7) would require that where point-feeding 
air from a primary escapeway to a belt entry designated as an 
alternative escapeway, point-feed regulators be equipped with a means 
to remotely close the regulator or any other means to isolate the two 
escapeways. The AMS operator, after consultation with the responsible 
person and section foreman, would be capable of performing this 
function from the designated surface location. In case of fire or other 
emergency, closing of the point-feed regulator provides necessary 
separation of the primary and alternate escapeways.
    This proposal permits the mine operator to close the regulator or 
provide an alternate means of isolating the two escapeways from the 
surface. The Agency believes that, in some cases, it may be more 
effective to provide an alternate means of isolation, such as an 
overhead door, than to close regulators.
    When an investigation into the cause of alert and alarm signals is 
conducted, the AMS operator, responsible person, and section foreman 
would consult to determine the need to close point-feed regulators. The 
decision to close point-feed regulators would be made based on this 
consultation as recommended by the Panel.
    Closure of a regulator can reduce the intake air quantity on a 
working section, and may cause sudden and rapid increases in methane 
concentrations at the working sections if mining continues. Closing 
regulators without notifying sections may lead to an ignition in the 
face area, fires and explosions.
    This provision would also apply if the belt entry is common with 
another entry designated as the alternate escapeway, and the belt air 
course is used as a section intake. However, this provision would not 
apply if the mine is point-feeding a belt air course which is not used 
to ventilate a working section, or if the belt air course entry is not 
designated as the alternate escapeway.
    The Panel also recommended requiring a means to remotely open the 
regulator from the designated surface location. Because the point-feed 
regulator is open under normal mining conditions, the Panel's 
recommendation would address re-opening the regulator after it is 
closed during a fire in the primary escapeway. MSHA believes that 
remote reopening could be accomplished by an electric device, such as 
an electric arm.
    MSHA has not included a requirement for providing a means for re-
opening the regulator from the designated surface location in the 
proposal. Even though reopening the point feed regulator could possibly 
be necessary if the airflow change caused by closing the point-feed 
turns out to have adverse effects on mine ventilation or smoke travel 
and must be reversed, MSHA believes that once evacuation is completed, 
the need for remote re-opening of the regulator will be rare. The 
Agency, however, solicits comments on whether a requirement to remotely 
re-open the regulator should be included in the final rule. Please be 
specific in your response, including the value of such a provision, 
alternatives, rationale, safety benefits to miners, technological and 
economic feasibility, and data to support your comment.
Section 75.351(b)--Designated Surface Location and AMS Operator
    Proposed Sec.  75.351(b)(2) addresses Panel Recommendation 12. In 
that recommendation, the Panel indicated that the highest priority of 
the AMS operator should be monitoring and responding to system signals.
    Consistent with the Panel's recommendation, the proposal would 
require that AMS operators have as a primary duty the responsibility to 
monitor the malfunction, alert, and alarm signals of the AMS and to 
notify appropriate personnel of these signals. Under the proposal, the 
AMS operator would not be prohibited from performing additional duties 
as long as the alert, alarm and malfunction signals can be seen or 
heard, and a timely

[[Page 35039]]

response can be initiated. This proposal would assure that the AMS 
operator's other duties would not adversely affect his/her primary 
responsibility of responding to AMS signals.
Section 75.351(e)--Location of Sensors--Belt Air Course
    Proposed Sec.  75.351(e) addresses additional requirements for the 
location of carbon monoxide and smoke sensors in mines using air from 
belt entries to ventilate working sections. The proposal contains other 
organizational and clarifying changes.
    Proposed Sec.  75.351(e)(1), renumbered from existing Sec.  
75.351(e), addresses the location of approved sensors. The term 
approved has been added to clarify that all sensors used for fire 
detection must be approved under the existing authority of Sec.  
75.1103-2. The reference to smoke sensors has been deleted, since the 
requirements for smoke sensors would be addressed in Sec.  
75.351(e)(2).
    Proposed Sec. Sec.  75.351(e)(1)(i) and (ii), are renumbered from 
existing Sec. Sec.  75.351(e)(1) and (2). No other changes have been 
proposed to these provisions.
    Proposed Sec.  75.351(e)(1)(iii), renumbered from existing Sec.  
75.351(e)(3), conforms the existing standard for sensor spacing to the 
minimum velocity of 100 feet per minute addressed in Panel 
Recommendation 13. At mines using air from the belt entry to ventilate 
the working sections, proposed Sec.  75.351(e)(1)(iii) would require 
1,000-foot sensor spacing where the minimum air velocity of 100 feet 
per minute (fpm) is maintained. If the mine operator requests approval 
to use velocities less than 100 fpm, but at least 50 fpm, maximum 
sensor spacing must be reduced to 500 feet. The proposal retains the 
existing requirement to reduce sensor spacing to 350 feet when the 
minimum velocity is less than 50 fpm.
    The requirement for a minimum velocity in the belt entry is based 
on the time it would take for carbon monoxide or smoke to travel from a 
fire to the sensors. When the air velocity is reduced, the time 
required to carry carbon monoxide gas or smoke to a sensor is 
increased. Therefore, the distance between sensors needs to be reduced 
to maintain the same level of early-warning fire detection.
    The proposed 500-foot spacing interval for velocities between 50 
and 100 fpm is a new requirement. MSHA calculated the proposed spacing 
requirement, which provides a 10-minute maximum travel time for gases 
between sensors. The 500-foot spacing requirement with a velocity 
between 50 and 100 fpm is equivalent to the 1,000-foot sensor spacing 
with 100 fpm air velocity. The time for carbon monoxide gas or smoke to 
travel from a fire to a downwind sensor is no greater than 10 minutes.
    Under the existing standard for sensor spacing of 1,000 feet and a 
minimum velocity of 50 fpm, the time for carbon monoxide or smoke to 
travel from a fire to the sensors is no more than 20 minutes. The 
proposed reduction in travel time for carbon monoxide or smoke to reach 
the sensors would significantly improve early detection of a fire in 
the belt entry.
    Proposed Sec.  75.351(e)(1)(iv) has been revised to add the 
requirement that if the distance between the belt drive unit, tailpiece 
transfer point, and belt take-up unit is more than 100 feet, an 
additional sensor would be required to monitor each of these belt 
conveyor components. These components are potential fire sources. The 
additional sensors will assure earlier detection of a fire.
    Proposed Sec.  75.351(e)(1)(v), is renumbered from existing Sec.  
75.351(e)(5). No other changes have been proposed to this provision.
    Proposed Sec.  75.351(e)(2) is a new provision which addresses 
Panel Recommendation 9. The Panel recommended that MSHA require the use 
of smoke sensors in addition to carbon monoxide sensors in mines using 
air from a belt entry to ventilate working sections at three specific 
locations. Under this proposal, smoke sensors would be required to be 
installed in areas where air from the belt entry is used to ventilate 
working sections and areas where mechanized mining equipment is being 
installed or removed.
    When smoke sensors become available, mine operators must comply 
with the requirements for installing both smoke and carbon monoxide 
sensors in those mines that use air from the belt entry to ventilate 
the working section.
    Proposed Sec.  75.351(e)(2)(i) would require a smoke sensor to be 
installed at or near the working section belt tailpiece in the air 
stream ventilating the belt entry. In longwall mining systems, the 
sensor would be located upwind in the belt entry at a distance no 
greater than 150 feet from the mixing point where intake air is mixed 
with the belt entry air at or near the tailpiece. A smoke sensor at or 
near the section tailpiece will warn miners of smoke prior to it 
contaminating the working section. This allows more time for miners to 
evacuate the section with less exposure to potentially toxic fumes.
    Proposed Sec.  75.351(e)(2)(ii) would require a smoke sensor to be 
installed not more than 100 feet downwind of each belt drive unit, each 
tailpiece transfer point, and each belt take-up. Under the proposal, if 
the belt drive, tailpiece, and take-up for a single transfer point are 
installed together in the same air course, they may be monitored with 
one sensor located not more than 100 feet downwind of the last 
component of the belt drive. However, if the distance between the belt 
drive unit, tailpiece transfer point, and belt take-up units is more 
than 100 feet, an additional sensor would be required to monitor each 
of these belt conveyor components. These components are potential fire 
sources. The additional sensors will assure earlier detection of a 
fire.
    Based upon the Panel's report and Agency experience, MSHA believes 
that smoke sensors provide additional protection at the belt drive, 
which can be a major source of frictional heating from belt slippage. 
This can often produce significant smoke with little carbon monoxide, 
and can result in a belt fire.
    Proposed Sec.  75.351(e)(2)(iii) would require smoke sensors to be 
installed at intervals not to exceed 3,000 feet along each belt entry. 
The Agency is not proposing to require a smoke sensor to be installed 
near the mid-point of the belt line as recommended by the Panel. The 
midpoint of the belt line will change with section advancement or 
retreat, which would require splicing of the data line when relocating 
the smoke sensor. The frequent splicing of the data lines could allow 
moisture and dust to enter the line and may result in communication 
failures. Miners have indicated that frequent splicing of the cable 
containing the AMS data line can adversely affect the reliability of a 
system.
    MSHA believes the proposed requirement for smoke sensors along the 
belt entry is responsive to the Panel's goal for more effective and 
reliable detection of conveyor belt fires. The proposal would avoid 
problems associated with frequent relocation of the smoke sensor. The 
3,000-foot spacing proposal would require longer belts to be monitored 
at additional locations.
    In its report, the Panel suggested a delayed effective date for the 
smoke sensor requirement, to permit in-mine evaluation of the sensors. 
The Panel noted reliability and maintenance issues with the use of 
smoke sensors in underground coal mines, especially along conveyor belt 
entries. NIOSH is currently testing smoke sensors used in other harsh 
industrial environments for their potential use in underground

[[Page 35040]]

mines. NIOSH is evaluating these sensors to assess reliability and 
service life.
    To allow for further in-mine evaluation and approval of smoke 
sensors, MSHA proposes in Sec.  75.351(e)(2)(iv) that this provision be 
effective one year after the Secretary has determined that a smoke 
sensor is available to reliably detect fire in underground coal mines. 
The Secretary's determination would be made after a nationally 
recognized testing laboratory formally lists a smoke sensor 
specifically tested for use in underground coal mines. In making the 
determination regarding the availability of smoke sensors, the 
Secretary will also consider whether additional rulemaking is 
appropriate. MSHA will notify mine operators of the availability of 
smoke sensors by publishing a notice in the Federal Register.
    This proposal is based on the Secretary's existing authority under 
Sec.  75.1103-2 to approve nationally recognized testing laboratories. 
The Secretary has approved two such laboratories for listing or 
approving components of automatic fire sensors. They are Underwriters 
Laboratories (UL) and Factory Mutual (FM). These laboratories establish 
standards for manufacturers of components of automatic fire sensors 
used in underground coal mines.
    MSHA has recommended change to a commercial standard for smoke 
detectors to be applied to address sensor reliability in underground 
coal mines. In December 2002, the Agency asked UL to add a category for 
smoke sensors for underground coal mines to their commercial 
performance standard for smoke sensors (UL268). In MSHA's request to 
UL, the Agency asked that the performance standard for smoke sensors 
include tests for sensitivity to smoldering and flaming coal. UL has 
formed a new working group, which includes an MSHA representative, to 
study false alarms caused by coal mine dust and other airborne 
particulates.
    MSHA's Program Policy Manual provides additional guidance on the 
requirements of Sec.  75.1103-2. The Manual states that fire sensors 
used in belt entries must be listed or approved by UL or FM. New or 
unique devices to be used as fire sensors that are not yet listed by UL 
or FM and which may meet the requirements of these standards can be 
submitted to MSHA's Office of Technical Support for a determination of 
whether they are acceptable to use.
    Once a laboratory has formally listed a smoke sensor for use in 
underground coal mines, the Secretary will evaluate the sensor to 
determine if it will reliably detect a fire in the underground 
environment. MSHA believes that, once the smoke sensors for underground 
coal mines are available, one year will allow mine operators using air 
from belt entries to ventilate working sections sufficient time to 
purchase and install the sensors. The Agency intends to keep the mining 
community informed of ongoing activities with respect to the 
development of smoke sensors for underground coal mines.
Section 75.351(q)--Training
    Proposed Sec.  75.351(q) addresses Panel Recommendation 12. 
Consistent with the Panel's recommendation, the proposal would specify 
the content of required annual training for AMS operators.
    Proposed Sec.  75.351(q)(1) would require training subjects to 
include: Familiarity with underground mining systems; basic atmospheric 
monitoring system requirements; the mine emergency evacuation and 
firefighting program of instruction; the mine ventilation system 
including planned air directions; appropriate responses to alert, alarm 
and malfunction signals; use of mine communication systems including 
emergency notification procedures; and AMS recordkeeping requirements. 
MSHA expects the training to address the specific conditions and 
practices at the mine where the AMS operator is employed. Based on 
Agency experience, MSHA believes an understanding of these subjects is 
essential to properly perform the duties of an AMS operator.
    Proposed Sec.  75.351(q)(2) is new and would require that, at least 
once every six months, all AMS operators must travel to all working 
sections to retain familiarity with underground mining systems 
including haulage, ventilation, communication, and escapeways. The 
Panel stated that some AMS operators do not travel underground, and 
recommended that they be required to spend at least a day underground 
on a semi-annual basis. MSHA believes that the requirement in this 
proposal would allow AMS operators to retain familiarity with the mine.
    Proposed Sec.  75.351(q)(3) is changed to require records of the 
training be maintained for at least two years. The existing requirement 
is one year. This will allow MSHA to verify the training in the 
previous year has been conducted.
Section 75.352--Actions in Response to AMS Malfunction, Alert, or Alarm 
Signals
    Proposed Sec.  75.352(f) includes a conforming reference and 
organizational changes. It would delete the terms ``50-foot per 
minute'' and replace the reference to Sec.  75.351(e)(3) with Sec.  
75.350(b)(7).
    Proposed Sec.  75.352(g) is a new provision addressing Panel 
Recommendation 16. The Panel recommended that when both of the sensors 
installed in the primary escapeway monitoring the point feed reach the 
carbon monoxide alert level, or if one sensor reaches the alarm level, 
a warning signal be given at the regulator location.
    The Panel's recommendation addresses point-feed regulators where 
air is introduced to a belt entry and used to ventilate the working 
section. The Panel specifically limited this recommendation to point-
feed regulators feeding the belt entries designated as alternate 
escapeways. Panel Recommendation 16, which relates to the installation 
of an additional sensor and remote closing of the point-feed regulator, 
is addressed by proposed Sec.  75.351(d)(1) and (d)(7).
    Proposed Sec.  75.352(g) would require that the AMS automatically 
provide both a visual and audible signal in the belt entry at the 
point-feed regulator location, at sections affected by a potential 
fire, and the designated surface location. These signals would be 
activated when carbon monoxide concentrations reach the alert level at 
both point-feed intake monitoring sensors, or the alarm level at either 
point-feed intake monitoring sensor.
    Under the proposal, visual and audible signals would have to be 
automatically activated at all three locations when concentrations of 
carbon monoxide at both of the sensors in the intake escapeway reach 
the alert level or when one sensor reaches the alarm level.
    The signal at the regulator would provide notice to miners nearby 
that a fire may have occurred in the primary escapeway, and that the 
point-feed regulator could be (or has been) remotely closed. This 
information should assist miners in evacuating the mine.
    The Panel did not specify in which escapeway the signal is to be 
located. Proposed 75.352(g) specifies that it would be located in the 
belt entry (alternate escapeway). Since the purpose of the signal is to 
warn of a potential fire in the primary escapeway and the point-feed 
regulator could be remotely closed from the surface, MSHA believes that 
it is more appropriate to locate the signal on the belt side of the 
regulator.

[[Page 35041]]

Section 75.371--Mine Ventilation Plan; Contents
    Proposed Sec.  75.371(jj) addresses Panel Recommendation 13 
regarding the approval of air velocities in the belt entry. Although 
the Panel recommended minimum and maximum velocities in the belt entry, 
they recognized that in certain areas of underground coal mines it may 
be difficult to achieve these velocities. The Panel specifically noted 
that this may occur in the outby air split near a point-feed regulator, 
or where the air meets a partial obstruction like an airway 
constriction at an overcast or undercast. Where the recommended 
velocities cannot be achieved, the Panel recommended that the District 
Manager may approve exceptions in the mine ventilation plan, dependent 
upon specific mine conditions.
    MSHA believes that requiring approval in the mine ventilation plan 
will allow the District Manager to fully evaluate the conditions in the 
mine including all aspects of the mine ventilation system. In making a 
determination on whether to approve requested velocities, the District 
Manager would evaluate the need for increasing fire detection 
sensitivity by adjusting alert and alarm levels for high velocities or 
reducing sensor spacing for low velocities.
    Proposed Sec.  75.371(mm) addresses Recommendation 10. The Panel 
recommended that MSHA perform regular, periodic reviews of the AMS 
records at mines using air from a belt entry to ventilate working 
sections to evaluate the number of occurrences of false alarms due to 
diesel exhaust. In those instances where such false alarms are 
excessive, the Panel recommended MSHA should require the use of 
existing diesel-discriminating sensors.
    Based on Agency experience, diesel exhaust contains carbon 
monoxide, and can activate alerts and alarms. Under these 
circumstances, these signals may not be the result of a fire, but the 
result of diesel equipment operating in the area. An excessive number 
of these alert and alarm signals can cause miners to become complacent 
and routinely ignore them as false alarms. The benefit of diesel-
discriminating sensors is that the frequency of signals caused by 
diesel engines is reduced.
    Under the proposal, the District Manager could require the use of 
diesel-discriminating sensors in the approved mine ventilation plan. 
The proposal would require that the operator include in the ventilation 
plan the locations of any diesel-discriminating sensors. The District 
Manager approval of the use of these sensors would be based on mine 
conditions where diesel-powered equipment is used and excessive alert 
and alarm signals are caused by diesel exhaust. Since the proposal 
would be applicable to all mines using belt haulage, it deletes the 
reference to Sec.  75.351(e)(5), which relates to mines using air from 
the belt entry to ventilate the working section.
    MSHA does conduct periodic reviews of AMS records during regular 
inspections of the mine. MSHA re-emphasized procedures for inspecting 
an AMS in a recently revised Agency handbook which specifically 
provides inspectors with guidance on evaluating the frequency of 
diesel-related alert and alarm signals. (Carbon Monoxide and 
Atmospheric Monitoring Systems Inspection Procedures MSHA Handbook PH-
08-V-2, February, 2008.)
    Proposed Sec.  75.371(nn) addresses Panel Recommendation 8. The 
Panel recommended discontinuing the use of point-type heat sensors, and 
using carbon monoxide sensors for all mines using belt haulage. 
Existing Sec.  75.351(m) requires that the use and length of any time 
delays be approved by the District Manager in the mine ventilation plan 
for mines using air from the belt entry to ventilate the working 
section. Time delays may also be necessary in some mines that do not 
use air from the belt entry to ventilate working sections to aid in the 
reduction of false alarms. Proposed Sec.  75.1103-4 would require the 
use of carbon monoxide sensors. Therefore, time delays for these mines 
must also be approved in the mine ventilation plan. Accordingly, the 
proposal deletes the reference to Sec.  75.351(m) since it would apply 
to all mines using belt haulage.
    Proposed Sec.  75.371(yy) addresses Panel Recommendation 14 
regarding the location of airlock doors installed between air courses. 
The Panel recommended that personnel doors along escapeways be 
structured to form an airlock when the force required to open a door, 
due to the pressure differential, exceeds 125 pounds.
    Proposed Sec.  75.333(c)(4) would require that an airlock be 
established where the air pressure differential between air courses 
creates a static force exceeding 125 pounds on closed personnel doors 
along escapeways. Proposed Sec.  75.371(yy) would require the operator 
to submit the locations where airlock doors are installed between air 
courses in the ventilation plan for approval by the District Manager. 
This requirement would apply to all underground coal mines.
    MSHA believes that requiring airlock doors to be approved in the 
mine ventilation plan will allow the District Manager to fully evaluate 
the conditions in the mine and all aspects of the mine ventilation 
system.
    Proposed Sec.  75.371(zz) addresses Panel Recommendation 14 
regarding ventilating pressure within the primary escapeway. The Panel 
recommended that primary escapeways be ventilated with intake air 
preferably, and to the extent possible, the primary escapeway should 
have a higher pressure than the belt entry. The proposal would require 
that locations where the mine operator cannot maintain the pressure 
differential from the primary escapeway to the belt entry be included 
in the mine ventilation plan. This would allow the District Manager to 
evaluate specific mine conditions and require additional actions or 
precautions to be taken to protect the integrity of the primary 
escapeway, as appropriate.
Section 75.380--Escapeways Bituminous and Lignite Mines, and 75.381--
Escapeways; Anthracite Mines
    This proposal would amend paragraphs (d)(7)(v), and (vi) and (f)(1) 
and add paragraphs (d)(7)(vii), (viii) and (ix) to Sec.  75.380. It 
also would amend similar language in paragraphs (c)(5)(v) and (vi), and 
(e) and add paragraphs (vii), (viii) and (ix) to Sec.  75.381.
    Proposed Sec. Sec.  75.380(d)(7) and 75.381(c)(5) address Panel 
Recommendation 15. Proposed Sec.  75.380 applies to escapeway 
requirements for bituminous and lignite mines, and Sec.  75.381 applies 
to escapeway requirements for anthracite mines.
    Although the Panel noted with approval recent MSHA standards on 
lifelines (71 FR 71430) it made two recommendations for improving 
requirements for lifelines. The first was to require tactile signals to 
identify impediments to travel, SCSR caches and personnel doors to 
adjacent escapeways. The second was to require nationwide 
standardization of all tactile signals.
    The proposal includes both of these recommendations for the 
following reasons. The location of personnel doors may not be easily 
identifiable in smoke-filled entries, and signals would help miners 
move to alternate escapeways when the primary route is impeded or 
blocked against passage. Impediments to travel could cause delays and 
possible injury to escaping miners. Standardized signals will reduce 
the possibility of confusion in an emergency, and will provide an 
additional safety benefit to miners who transfer to different mines 
because they would not have to become familiar with new signal systems.
    Existing Sec. Sec.  75.380(d)(7)(v) and 75.381(c)(5)(v) require 
lifelines with directional indicators, signifying the

[[Page 35042]]

route of escape, placed at intervals not exceeding 100 feet. Proposed 
Sec. Sec.  75.380(d)(7)(v) and 75.381(c)(5)(v) would require one cone 
to be used as the directional indicator. Like the existing rule, each 
cone would have to be installed so that the tapered section points 
inby.
    Existing Sec. Sec.  75.380(d)(7)(vi) and 75.381(c)(5)(vi) require 
tactile signals be attached to the lifeline to identify the location of 
SCSR caches, but do not specify the type of signal to be provided. 
Proposed Sec. Sec.  75.380(d)(7)(vi) and 75.381(c)(5)(vi) require 
standardization of tactile signals. Consistent with the Panel's 
recommendation, the tactile feedback for SCSR storage locations would 
be six back-to-back directional cones.
    Proposed Sec. Sec.  75.380(d)(7)(vii) and 75.381(c)(5)(vii) are new 
provisions which would require standardized tactile signals to identify 
the location of personnel doors to adjacent crosscuts connecting 
escapeways. Consistent with the Panel's recommendation, the proposal 
would require that the tactile feedback for personnel doors be four 
back-to-back directional cones.
    Proposed Sec. Sec.  75.380(d)(7)(viii) and 75.381(c)(5)(viii) are 
new provisions which would require standardized tactile signals to 
identify the location of physical impediments in the escapeway. 
Consistent with the Panel's recommendation, the proposal would require 
that the tactile feedback for physical impediments would be two back-
to-back directional cones. For example, when miners are approaching an 
overcast in an escapeway, two back-to-back directional cones would 
alert them to prepare to encounter a set of stairs to cross the 
overcast. Examples of other impediments include water sumps, track, 
conveyor belts, and regulators.
    Under the proposal, MSHA defines back-to-back to mean that multiple 
cones are aligned so that they are in contact with one another, with 
all tapered sections pointing inby. As a miner's hand passes over these 
cones, the feedback for each of the recommended signals would be easily 
understood.
    In another rulemaking, MSHA is proposing new requirements for 
refuge alternatives in underground coal mines. The Agency believes a 
distinctive tactile signal should also be attached to lifelines to 
identify the location of refuge alternatives. Because tactile signals 
on lifelines are addressed in this proposal, to provide a comprehensive 
and integrated approach for these requirements, the Agency is including 
this provision in this rulemaking.
    Proposed Sec. Sec.  75.380(d)(7)(ix) and 75.381(c)(5)(ix) would 
require lifelines to be marked to provide tactile feedback 
distinguishable from other markings to indicate the location of refuge 
alternatives. The tactile feedback for a refuge alternative would be a 
two-foot length of rigid spiraled coil (cork-screw style). This 
distinctive signal would improve safety by alerting miners to the 
location of refuge alternatives in areas of poor visibility. The 
proposal also would require another line to be attached from the 
lifeline to the refuge alternative. This line would be attached at the 
spiraled coil on the lifeline. This line would allow miners traveling 
in smoke to locate refuge alternatives along the escapeway, and return 
to the lifeline if refuge access is blocked.
    Each of the signals in this proposal must be distinguishable from 
other markings. These signals, when integrated with escapeway drills, 
will help miners understand the differences in, and significance of, 
tactile signals and aid in evacuating the mine. The Agency specifically 
solicits comments on alternative tactile signal markings.
    Proposed Sec. Sec.  75.380(f) and 75.381(e) would require the 
primary escapeway to have a higher ventilation pressure than the belt 
entry. Under the proposal, the operator can submit an alternative in 
the mine ventilation plan to protect the integrity of the primary 
escapeway. Approval by the District Manager would be based on mine-
specific conditions. This provision would apply to all mines using belt 
haulage.
    In Recommendation 14, the Panel stated that primary escapeways 
should be designed, constructed, and maintained in accordance with the 
provisions of existing Sec.  75.333 (b)-(d) to minimize the air 
leakage. The Panel also recommended that primary escapeways be 
ventilated with intake air preferably and, to the extent possible, the 
primary escapeway should have a higher pressure than the belt entry. 
Based on Agency experience, MSHA recognizes the need to maintain the 
pressure differential from the primary escapeway to the belt air 
course. A higher pressure in the primary escapeway would assure that 
air leakage would move from this escapeway to the belt entry. In case 
of a fire in the belt entry, the primary escapeway would not become 
contaminated.
    The proposal would require the pressure differential to be 
maintained. However, under the proposal, the operator could submit an 
alternative in the mine ventilation plan to protect the integrity of 
the primary escapeway. MSHA agrees with the Panel's recognition that it 
is difficult to maintain the pressure differential from the intake to 
the belt entry at all times. The different resistances to air flow 
within the air courses will cause changes to the pressure differentials 
between the adjacent entries separated by permanent ventilation 
controls. At some locations, especially near working sections, pressure 
differentials will often reverse between the two air courses. MSHA 
experience is that these reversals are small in magnitude. However, 
even low pressure differentials can allow significant leakage where 
ventilation controls are not properly maintained.
    There are two components to air leakage. First, the flow from one 
entry to the other is caused by the pressure differential. Air will 
tend to flow from high to low pressure. The other component is the 
resistance to flow. A high resistance will not allow high air flow 
rates even when the pressure differentials are considerable. A key to 
limiting air leakage through a ventilation control is to increase the 
resistance by sealing the control and its perimeter. Historically, MSHA 
has identified damaged and improperly installed doors as sources of 
high air leakage. Openings in stoppings to provide routing of air and 
water lines, electrical conductors and other conduits must also be 
sealed to minimize air leakage. When these conduits are removed, 
ventilation controls must be properly repaired.
    The Agency does not expect mine operators to use check curtains or 
other temporary ventilation controls such as parachute stoppings to 
increase the resistance in the primary escapeway in order to pressurize 
the air course during normal mining. The use of such controls on a 
regular basis diminishes the efficiency of the ventilation system.

Subpart L--Fire Protection

75.1103-4--Automatic Fire Sensor and Warning Device Systems; 
Installation; Minimum Requirements
    Proposed Sec.  75.1103-4 addresses Panel Recommendation 8. The 
Panel recommended that MSHA initiate rulemaking to discontinue the use 
of point-type heat sensors (PTHS) for early-warning and detection of 
conveyor belt fires in all underground coal mines.
    In making its recommendation, the Panel examined research comparing 
the fire detection capabilities of carbon monoxide sensors and PTHS. 
The Panel concluded that there are inherent inadequacies with PTHS for 
reliable early-warning belt fire detection. According to the Panel's 
report, carbon monoxide sensors can detect fires at an

[[Page 35043]]

earlier stage of fire development than PTHS. The Panel found the time 
it took for PTHS to alarm during a fire was much longer than the time 
it took carbon monoxide sensors to alarm. The Panel also found that the 
location and spacing of PTHS relative to fire location could result in 
fires not being detected in a timely manner.
    Research and accident investigation reports on fires have 
consistently shown that carbon monoxide sensors are superior to PTHS. 
MSHA's accident investigation report of the Dilworth mine fire, 
(MSHA,1992 Greene County, PA) revealed that carbon monoxide sensors 
were superior to PTHS, where both sensors were installed in the same 
belt entry. The ignition source of the fire was located nearly midway 
between two heat sensors spaced at 50 feet. The fire was detected by 
the carbon monoxide sensor located 1,400 feet downwind of the fire. The 
fire was extinguished by miners without injury and with only little 
damage in the belt entry. The heat sensors installed along the belt did 
not detect the fire.
    Proposed Sec.  75.1103-4 would require the use of carbon monoxide 
sensors for fire detection along belt conveyors in all underground coal 
mines. In addition, the proposal includes installation, maintenance, 
operating and training requirements.
    Proposed Sec.  75.1103-4(a) would require the use of an early-
warning fire detection system in all underground coal mines to identify 
fires along the entire belt conveyor system. The proposal would remove 
the requirement to identify the belt flight on which the system detects 
fire. When PTHS are used for fire detection, they are designed to 
identify the belt flight on which the fire occurs. Carbon monoxide 
sensors provide a more precise identification of the location, to 
within 1,000 feet.
    For example, suppose a belt flight length of 4,800 feet is being 
monitored for a fire. If a PTHS indicated a fire, the system would 
identify the fire to be within an area encompassing 4,800 feet of 
beltline. Using carbon monoxide sensors, the system would identify the 
fire as being upwind of the sensor location and within 1,000 feet of 
the sensor. This will narrow the search area for determining the source 
of the alarm signal, and aid in extinguishing the fire in a more 
timely, effective manner. The proposed requirement for carbon monoxide 
sensors in all mines results in earlier identification of the location 
of a fire and is a significant improvement in fire detection.
    Proposed Sec.  75.1103-4(a)(1) would require the use of carbon 
monoxide sensors to be installed at specific locations along belt 
conveyors. These locations maximize the potential of early warning of a 
fire in the belt entry, and are based on Agency experience with the use 
of carbon monoxide sensors in underground coal mines.
    Proposed Sec.  75.1103-4(a)(1)(i) would require a sensor to be 
placed not more than 100 feet downwind of each belt drive unit, each 
tailpiece transfer point, and each belt take-up. Under the proposal, if 
the belt drive, tailpiece, and/or take-up are installed together in the 
same air course, they may be monitored with one sensor located not more 
than 100 feet downwind of the last component. However, if the distance 
between the belt drive unit, tailpiece transfer point, and belt take-up 
units is more than 100 feet, an additional sensor would be required to 
monitor each of these belt conveyor components.
    This requirement is intended to provide early fire detection in the 
belt drive area, a potential fire source due to dust accumulations and 
electrical equipment.
    Proposed Sec.  75.1103-4(a)(1)(ii) would require a sensor to be 
installed in the belt entry not more than 100 feet downwind of each 
section loading point. Under the proposal, this sensor would monitor 
the section loading point, and provide miners on the section with 
warning of fire in the belt entry.
    Proposed Sec.  75.1103-4(a)(1)(iii) would require that sensors be 
located along the belt entry so that the spacing between sensors does 
not exceed 1,000 feet. Where air velocities are less than 50 feet per 
minute, spacing must not exceed 350 feet. The proposed 350-foot spacing 
has been shown in NIOSH research to provide effective early warning of 
a fire in the belt entry when the air velocity is 50 feet per minute or 
less. The combination of sensor spacing and air velocity is required to 
assure that carbon monoxide produced by a belt fire is transported to 
the sensor to provide for an effective warning.
    Proposed Sec.  75.1103-4(a)(1)(iv) would require sensors to be 
located upwind, a distance of no greater than 50 feet from the point 
where the belt air course is combined with another air course or splits 
into multiple air courses. This would require placing a carbon monoxide 
sensor in the belt entry just before the air stream splits to ventilate 
another belt entry. Also, if two belt air splits join, this provision 
would require a sensor in each air split immediately prior to joining. 
These sensors would provide a more precise location of the air split 
where the fire originated.
    Proposed Sec.  75.1103-4(a)(2) would remove the reference to point-
type heat sensors and replace it with carbon monoxide sensors. In 
proposed Sec.  75.1103-4(a)(1), MSHA would no longer accept the use of 
PTHS for fire detection along belt conveyors.
    Proposed Sec.  75.1103-4(a)(3) would remove the 125-foot spacing 
requirement for point-type heat sensors and replace it with conforming 
requirements for carbon monoxide sensor spacing. Because point-type 
heat sensors would no longer be permitted, spacing for these devices 
would no longer be applicable. Carbon monoxide sensors would be 
required to be added when the distance from the section loading point 
to the first outby sensor reaches 1,000 feet when air velocity is at 
least 50 feet per minute, and 350 feet if the velocity is less than 50 
feet per minute.
    Proposed Sec.  75.1103-4(b) would require that sensors be installed 
near the center in the upper third of the entry, in a location that 
does not expose personnel working on the fire detection system to 
unsafe conditions. The proposal provides that sensors must not be 
located in abnormally high areas or in other locations where air flow 
patterns do not permit products of combustion to be carried to the 
sensors.
    MSHA based this proposed requirement on the results of NIOSH 
research and Agency experience with carbon monoxide sensors. This data 
has shown that during both smoldering and open combustion fires, the 
products of combustion stratify, leaving higher concentrations of smoke 
and carbon monoxide near the mine roof. Based on this, NIOSH 
recommended installing sensors near the roof of the entry to take 
advantage of stratification. MSHA's experience is that when operators 
do not properly position sensors, fire detection can be hindered or 
delayed. For example, sensors that are positioned behind equipment or 
other obstructions may not be exposed to the products of combustion 
contained in the air stream, thereby impairing their ability to provide 
for effective fire detection.
    This provision requires sensors to be installed near the center, 
and in the upper third, of the belt entry. In most cases, the safest 
location for installing a sensor is from a roof bolt plate or belt 
hanger located beside the belt along the walkway. This would prevent 
miners from being exposed to hazards such as a moving belt when 
calibrating or examining sensors.

[[Page 35044]]

Section 75.1103-5--Automatic Fire Warning Devices; Actions and Response
    Proposed Sec.  75.1103-5, which has been retitled, adds 
requirements for initiating warning signals and responses for 
automating fire warning devices. It provides conforming changes to 
Sec.  75.1103-4.
    Proposed Sec.  75.1103-5(a) requires that when the carbon monoxide 
level reaches 10 parts per million above the ambient level at any 
sensor location, an effective warning signal must be provided at 
specific locations. Consistent with MSHA's existing standards for a 
warning signal to be effective, it must be seen or heard.
    PTHS provide warning based on elevated temperatures, while carbon 
monoxide sensors provide warning based on elevated levels of carbon 
monoxide. The proposed requirement of carbon monoxide sensors 
represents a significant improvement in providing early warning of a 
fire in the belt entry over the use of point-type heat sensors. MSHA 
experience shows that an action level at 10 parts per million above the 
ambient level provides an effective warning of a fire and allows miners 
the opportunity to safely evacuate the affected area. The Agency is 
soliciting comments on this approach.
    Proposed Sec.  75.1103-5(a) would require warning signals to be 
provided at both underground work locations and on the surface. The 
existing standard requires that signals be provided at either 
underground work locations where miners may be endangered, or at a 
manned location.
    Proposed Sec.  75.1103-5(a)(1) would require effective warning 
signals to be provided to working sections and other work locations 
where miners may be endangered from a fire in the belt entry. Locations 
where miners may be endangered would include working sections, areas 
where mechanized mining equipment is being installed or removed, 
permanent work locations, and other locations specified in the Mine 
Emergency Evacuation and Firefighting Program of Instruction required 
by Sec.  75.1502.
    Proposed Sec.  75.1103-5(a)(2) retains the existing requirement 
that the warning signal be provided to a manned location. The proposal 
would require that the manned location be on the surface. MSHA believes 
requiring that the warning be provided to a surface location will 
facilitate timely and effective evacuation of miners and improve 
communication with mine management. This will facilitate more effective 
decision-making in a mine emergency. The proposed requirement that the 
warning be provided on the surface would also allow for required 
communication with local emergency response personnel, appropriate 
state agencies, and MSHA. This is consistent with the Emergency 
Response Plan requirement in Section 2 of the MINER Act for local 
communication.
    Proposed Sec.  75.1103-5(a)(2)(i) retains the requirement for 
having a telephone or equivalent communication with all miners who may 
be endangered.
    Proposed Sec.  75.1103-5(a)(2)(ii) is new, and requires a mine map 
or schematic that shows the location of sensors and the intended air 
flow direction at these locations to be posted at the manned surface 
location. This new provision is necessary to assure that the location 
of a potential fire can be identified in a timely manner. With the use 
of carbon monoxide sensors, a fire location is identified by specific 
sensors. The sensor locations are most easily identifiable by using a 
map or schematic. The air directions are needed to facilitate fire 
fighting activities and evacuation in the event of a fire, explosion or 
other emergency.
    Proposed Sec.  75.1103-5(a)(3) is derived from the existing rule, 
and has not been changed, except for the numbering.
    Proposed Sec. Sec.  75.1103-5(d) through (h) are new provisions 
which would specify responses required to signals from the automatic 
fire warning devices. This proposal is consistent with requirements for 
responses to AMS signals in existing Sec.  75.352. These provisions 
would apply to all mines using belt haulage.
    Proposed Sec. Sec.  75.1103-5(d) and (e) specify requirements for 
responses to malfunction and warning signals. When a malfunction or 
warning signal is received at the surface location, Sec.  75.1103-5(d) 
would require that the sensor must be identified and appropriate 
personnel be immediately notified. Depending upon the circumstances at 
the mine, appropriate personnel may include the mine foreman, mine 
electrician, or other persons responsible for maintaining the sensors. 
Proposed Sec.  75.1103-5(e) would require appropriate personnel to 
immediately initiate an investigation to determine the cause of the 
malfunction or warning signal and take necessary corrective action. 
These proposed provisions require immediate corrective actions to 
assure that the appropriate responses are taken in case of an 
emergency.
    Proposed Sec.  75.1103-5(f) would require specific procedures be 
followed in case of a warning signal. Proposed Sec.  75.1103-5(f)(1) 
would require appropriate personnel to notify miners in affected 
working sections, in affected areas where mechanized mining equipment 
is being installed or removed, and at other locations specified in the 
Sec.  75.1502 approved mine emergency evacuation and firefighting 
program of instruction when a warning signal is received. This 
notification is in addition to the automatic signal required in 
proposed Sec.  75.1103-5(a)(1). Proposed Sec.  75.1103-5(f)(2) would 
require all miners in the affected areas to be immediately withdrawn to 
a safe location identified in the mine emergency evacuation and 
firefighting program of instruction upon notification of a warning 
signal. Under the proposal, miners who are assigned emergency response 
duties do not have to be withdrawn.
    The actions specified in Sec. Sec.  75.1103-5(f)(1) and (f)(2) must 
be taken, unless the operator determines the source of the warning does 
not present a hazard to miners. For example, if the operator knows that 
the warning signal is caused by cutting and welding or calibration of a 
sensor, actions would not have to be taken. MSHA believes these 
proposed actions are needed to assure that the protective early-warning 
capabilities of the carbon monoxide sensor result in timely action and 
rapid evacuation in case of emergency.
    Proposed Sec.  75.1103-5(g) would require that, if the warning 
signal will be activated during calibration of sensors, personnel 
manning the surface location must be notified prior to and upon 
completion of calibration. The notification is also required for miners 
underground in affected areas. This proposal is necessary so that 
miners know that a warning signal is not a fire. This proposal would 
apply only at mines where calibration of sensors would cause activation 
of warning signals; many sensors have a calibration mode, where warning 
signals are blocked during calibration.
    Proposed Sec.  75.1103-5(h) would require that if any fire 
detection component becomes inoperative, immediate action must be taken 
to repair the component. This proposal would assure that repairs are 
made in a timely manner so that the fire detection system will remain 
capable of warning miners of a fire in the belt entry.
    While repairs are being made, the belt may continue to operate if 
the requirements in proposed Sec. Sec.  75.1103-5(h)(1) through (h)(6) 
are met. Otherwise, the belt must be taken out of service until 
necessary repairs are made.
    Proposed Sec. Sec.  75.1103-5(h)(1) through (h)(3) would require 
trained persons to continuously monitor or patrol the area of the mine 
where inoperable sensors

[[Page 35045]]

have been identified. When only one sensor is affected, Sec.  75.1103-
5(h)(1) would permit continued belt operation when a trained person is 
stationed at the sensor and monitors the air for carbon monoxide using 
a hand-held detector. If two or more adjacent sensors are affected, 
Sec.  75.1103-5(h)(2) would permit continued belt operation if the area 
monitored by these sensors is patrolled so the area is traveled each 
hour in its entirety. As an alternative under the proposal, the mine 
operator could have a trained person stationed at each inoperative 
sensor location. Proposed Sec.  75.1103-5(h)(3) would require the same 
monitoring if the entire fire detection system becomes inoperative.
    Proposed Sec.  75.1103-5(h)(4) would require the trained persons 
monitoring inoperable sensors to have two-way voice communication at 
intervals not to exceed 2,000 feet with the surface. The proposal would 
require that carbon monoxide levels be reported to the surface at 
intervals not to exceed one hour.
    Proposed Sec.  75.1103-5(h)(5) would require that trained persons 
monitoring under this section must immediately report to the surface 
when any concentration of carbon monoxide reaches 10 parts per million 
above the established ambient level, unless the operator knows that the 
source of the carbon monoxide does not present a hazard to miners. As 
stated previously, unless the carbon monoxide does not present a hazard 
to miners, the mine operator would be required to withdraw affected 
miners to the location specified in the approved Mine Emergency 
Evacuation and Firefighting Program of Instruction.
    Proposed Sec.  75.1103-5(h)(6) would require that handheld 
detectors used to monitor the belt entry under this section have a 
detection level equivalent to that of the carbon monoxide sensors.
Section 75.1103-6--Automatic Fire Sensors; Actuation of Fire 
Suppression Systems
    Proposed Sec.  75.1103-6 would provide that point-type heat sensors 
may be used to activate fire suppression systems. Although the Panel 
recommended discontinuing the use of point-type heat sensors for fire 
detection, it recognized a benefit in allowing them to be used for 
activating fire suppression systems. Consistent with the Panel's 
recommendation, under the proposal point-type heat sensors may continue 
to be used to actuate deluge-type water systems, foam generator 
systems, multipurpose dry-powder systems, or other equivalent automatic 
fire suppression systems.
Section 75.1103-8--Automatic Fire Sensor and Warning Device Systems; 
Inspection and Test Requirements
    Existing Sec.  75.1103-8 requires that the mine operator conduct 
weekly inspection and annual functional testing of the fire detection 
system, as well as make and retain records of the inspection and 
testing. These requirements were developed for point-type heat sensors, 
and do not provide adequate protection for carbon monoxide sensors.
    MSHA experience has shown an examination of the carbon monoxide 
sensors at least once each shift when the belts are operated as part of 
a coal production shift is necessary to assure the sensors will operate 
and respond as required in the event of a fire. The mine environment in 
the belt entry can be harsh with potential roof falls, rock dusting, 
water sprays and coal dust. All of these physical factors can cause the 
carbon monoxide sensors to be compromised. Because sensors can be 
vulnerable to these factors, it is important that the mine operator 
examine the sensors each shift.
    MSHA experience has shown annual testing of warning signals is not 
sufficient to assure these critical components will operate properly in 
time of emergency. Automatic fire warning system components commonly 
use batteries to activate warning signals. Annual functional testing 
may not identify batteries that are no longer capable of powering the 
warning signals. Proper weekly functional testing has been shown to 
provide assurance that properly installed batteries will activate 
warning signals.
    Proposed Sec.  75.1103-8(a) would require automatic fire sensor and 
warning device systems to be examined at least once each shift when 
belts are operated as part of a production shift, and a functional test 
of the warning signals to be made at least once every seven days. 
Increased frequency of examinations and functional tests of the system 
would better assure the system effectively maintains its fire warning 
capability so that it could provide adequate warning to miners of a 
fire. The increased examinations would also alert the mine operator to 
any damaged or missing components. Like the existing standard, the 
proposal would require that inspection and maintenance of these systems 
be completed by a qualified person.
    Under the proposal, the functional test must be completed at 
intervals not to exceed 7 days. MSHA expects the functional test to 
verify that warning signals are effective at all locations where these 
signals are provided. MSHA would expect that a functional test would 
include application of carbon monoxide gas to the sensors necessary to 
activate each warning signal. These functional tests are needed to 
assure that the system retains its fire warning capability so that it 
will provide the proper warning signal in case of emergency. The Agency 
believes that the proposed examination requirements can be integrated 
into required preshift and on-shift examinations under existing 
Sec. Sec.  75.360 and 75.362. The examinations would identify any 
problems with sensors such as improper installation, damaged sensors or 
cables, and missing components.
    These examination frequencies are consistent with the Agency's 
current examination procedures for carbon monoxide sensors for all 
mines using these sensors in lieu of point-type heat sensors. These 
examinations are currently being performed at these mines, and are 
included in the mine ventilation plan or a granted petition for 
modification.
    Like the existing rule, proposed Sec.  75.1103-8(b) requires that 
the mine operator maintain a record of the functional tests. The 
proposal would also require that the mine operator keep a record of the 
functional tests for one year. Maintaining records for one year is 
consistent with other recordkeeping requirements, and would indicate to 
MSHA how warning signals operate over the course of a year. The 
proposal would delete the existing requirement that a record card of 
the weekly inspection be kept at each belt drive as this would no 
longer be necessary.
    Proposed Sec.  75.1103-8(c) would require that carbon monoxide 
sensors be calibrated at intervals not to exceed 31 days according to 
manufacturers' instructions. MSHA experience has shown this interval to 
be an appropriate time period to assure that carbon monoxide sensors 
respond effectively and reliably in the event of a fire. In addition, 
the proposal would require a record of sensor calibrations to be kept 
for a period of one year. The record will provide the mine operator 
with information to make necessary repairs and maintain the system, and 
will allow MSHA to verify that these corrective actions were taken in a 
timely manner.

Subpart R--Miscellaneous

Section 75.1731--Maintenance of Belt Conveyors and Belt Conveyor 
Entries
    Proposed Sec.  75.1731 is new and addresses Panel Recommendations 
1, 5, 6 and 14 regarding belt entry and conveyor belt maintenance. It 
would

[[Page 35046]]

apply to all underground coal mines using belt haulage.
    In their report, the Panel recommended that MSHA rigorously enforce 
existing standards on underground conveyor belt maintenance and fire 
protection, and improve inspection procedures. They also stated that 
MSHA should focus on required examinations of the belt lines by mine 
examiners to assure each belt is kept in good working order. The Panel 
identified the following areas for increased attention by belt 
examiners: Belts rubbing stands; damaged rollers; inadequate rock 
dusting; and accumulations of materials. In its enforcement of conveyor 
belt examinations, MSHA has traditionally focused on these and other 
hazards. Proposed Sec.  75.1731 addresses areas associated with the 
belt entry and would require that the operator pay special attention to 
them to assure proper belt maintenance.
    In its report, the Panel cited MSHA's investigation into the 
Aracoma Alma Mine No. 1 (Aracoma) belt fire as evidence of inadequate 
belt maintenance (MSHA Fatal Accident Report, Logan County, WV, 2007). 
MSHA identified as root causes of the fire deficiencies in belt 
maintenance and examinations. Prevention of belt fires is a critical 
element in improving miners' safety, and proper maintenance and 
examinations will reduce the likelihood of fires.
    Proposed Sec.  75.1731 would require: (a) Damaged rollers and other 
malfunctioning belt conveyor components to be immediately repaired or 
replaced; and (b) conveyor belts to be properly aligned to prevent the 
moving belt from rubbing against the support structure or other 
components. In both instances, improper belt examinations could lead to 
uncorrected hazards. This could result in frictional heating of 
combustibles in the belt entry which could cause a fire. The proposed 
provisions would require mine operators to assure that belt examiners 
identify and correct hazardous conditions in the conveyor belt entry to 
improve safety of miners.
    Existing Sec.  75.1725(a) contains inspection and maintenance 
requirements applicable to mobile and stationary machinery and 
equipment, including conveyor belts. Based on its experience, MSHA does 
not believe that the existing standard appropriately addresses the 
Panel's concerns regarding potential hazards resulting from inadequate 
examinations by belt examiners and inadequate maintenance. These 
hazards are caused by misalignment of the belt, damaged rollers and 
other belt components, and accumulations of non-combustibles. Proposed 
Sec. Sec.  75.1731(a) and (b) specifically address these hazards.
    Existing Sec.  75.400 addresses accumulation of combustible 
materials, but it does not address hazards resulting from accumulation 
of noncombustible materials in the belt entry. Noncombustible materials 
include rock, trash, and discarded conveyor belt parts. These materials 
may become potential frictional ignition sources for combustible 
materials, resulting in a belt fire, or may pose tripping hazards in 
the belt entry. Proposed Sec.  75.1731(c) would prohibit the 
accumulation of such noncombustible materials in the belt conveyor 
entry. The Agency does not intend that this provision apply to rock 
dust applied in the belt entry which is used to mitigate the 
accumulation of float coal dust.
    Proposed Sec.  75.1731(d) would require that splicing of any 
approved conveyor belt must maintain flame-resistant properties of the 
belt. Some belts can be a significant source of fuel for a mine fire. 
To protect miners, it is essential that any splices in the belt 
maintain the fire resistant properties of the belt so that it will not 
easily ignite or be a source of fuel for a fire.
    MSHA recognizes the need to address splicing of the belt so that 
the materials and processes used in splicing do not compromise the 
flame resistant properties of the belt. Because splicing is a belt 
maintenance issue, the provision is included in this section.
    MSHA requests comments on the following suggested effective and 
compliance dates for the final rule:
    Effective dates: (following publication date of the final rule)--
Compliance dates: Each mine operator shall comply with the following 
sections by the dates listed below.
    1. Sec.  75.156 AMS operator qualification--2 months.
    2. Sec.  46.27 Task Training Plan for AMS operators--2 months.
    3. Sec.  75.333(c)(4) Airlocks--3 months.
    4. Sec.  75.350(a)(2) Minimum Velocity--12 months.
    5. Sec.  75.350(b) Operator Submission of Revised Ventilation Plan 
for Approval for Use of Air from the Belt Entry--3 months.
    6. Sec.  75.351(e)(2) Smoke Sensors--12 months after Approval.
    7. Sec. Sec.  75.380 and 75.381 Lifeline Signals--6 months.
    8. Sec. Sec.  75.380 and 75.381 Primary Escapeway--6 months.
    9. Sec. Sec.  75.1103-4, 5, 8 Replacing PTHS--12 months.
    10. Sec.  75.1731 Maintenance of belt conveyors and belt conveyor 
entries--2 months.

IV. 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 economic materials presented in this 
preamble, including data on the mining industry, costs and benefits, 
feasibility, small business impacts, and paperwork. The PREA is located 
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 in the ADDRESSES section of the preamble. MSHA 
requests comments on all the estimates of costs and benefits 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 
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 not have an annual effect of $100 million or 
more on the economy and that, therefore, it is not an economically 
significant regulatory action. MSHA has concluded that the proposed 
rule is otherwise significant because it raises novel legal or policy 
issues.

A. Population at Risk

    The proposed rule 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 42,207 miners, operating in the U.S. 
in 2007.

B. Benefits

    MSHA has qualitatively evaluated the potential safety benefits of 
the provisions of this proposed rule on improved flame-resistant 
conveyor belts, fire prevention and detection, and approval of the use 
of air from the belt entry to ventilate the working sections in 
underground coal mines. The proposal would implement Section 11

[[Page 35047]]

of the MINER Act and the recommendations of the Technical Study Panel 
(Panel) on the Utilization of Belt Air and The Composition and Fire 
Retardant Properties of Belt Materials in Underground Coal Mining.
    The proposed provisions on improved flame-resistant conveyor belts 
would reduce belt entry fires in underground coal mines and would 
prevent related fatalities and injuries. From 1980 to 2007, there were 
65 reportable belt entry fires. Almost all involved the conveyor belt 
itself. These fires caused over two dozen injuries and three deaths--
one in 1986 at the Florence No. 1 Mine, and two in 2006 at the Alma No. 
1 Mine. The Technical Study Panel noted that the number of belt fires 
had decreased over the past decade, but that the rate (i.e., number of 
fires per thousand mines) has remained constant. The Panel also noted 
that during this same period, although underground coal production 
increased so that the number of belt fires per 100 million tons 
decreased, there was high variability from year to year. These proposed 
provisions would prevent conveyor belt fires and, in turn, reduce 
accidents, injuries, and deaths caused by conveyor belt fires.
    The proposed provisions on fire prevention and detection and 
approval of the use of air from the belt entry in underground coal 
mines would improve miner safety. The provision addressing maintenance 
of the belt conveyor and belt conveyor entry will improve safety to 
miners by requiring specific associated hazards to be corrected when 
found. These hazards, known to be sources of belt fire ignitions, 
include damaged and missing rollers and belt misalignment. For example, 
the MSHA Investigation Report of the Aracoma Alma Mine No.1 fire 
determined that the fire occurred as a result of the frictional heating 
due to a misaligned belt. The provision would also require that damaged 
components removed from service and other non-combustibles be removed 
from the belt entry. These non-combustibles are tripping hazards and 
potential sources of frictional heating that could lead to fire.
    The proposed requirement to replace point-type heat sensors with 
carbon monoxide sensors for fire detection along belt conveyors in all 
underground coal mines would enhance miner safety because carbon 
monoxide sensors provide earlier fire detection. Earlier fire detection 
allows miners to better address the problem and/or evacuate the area. 
MSHA's research and accident investigation reports indicate that carbon 
monoxide sensors are superior to point-type heat sensors. For example, 
in the 1992 Dilworth Mine fire, the point-type heat sensors were no 
more than 27 feet away, but the carbon monoxide sensor that actually 
detected the fire was 1,400 feet downwind of the fire. Based on MSHA's 
research and experience, replacing point-type heat sensors with carbon 
monoxide sensors is an improvement in early fire warning detection.
    Inadequate Atmospheric Monitoring System (AMS) operator training 
was identified as a contributing factor in the two fatalities in the 
Aracoma fire. Accident investigators found all miners assigned the 
duties of an AMS operator at this mine needed additional training to 
properly respond to alert, alarm, and malfunction signals generated by 
the AMS. The proposed provisions for AMS operator qualification and 
training would improve safety for miners by assuring that AMS operators 
will have the knowledge to respond properly to AMS signals. The 
qualification of miners as AMS operators would assure that MSHA has 
oversight in the development and approval of the task training, and 
annual retraining requirements would assure that AMS operators retain 
knowledge and training needed to perform specific duties and 
responsibilities. Specified training requirements would also assure 
that AMS operators are familiar with underground mining systems such as 
coal haulage, transportation, ventilation, and escape facilities.
    Methane ignitions and explosions in the face areas can cause 
serious injuries or death to miners. The proposed provision requiring a 
reduced concentration of methane in the belt entry would improve safety 
for miners working on sections where air from the belt entry is used to 
ventilate the section. This reduced methane standard would provide a 
greater methane dilution capacity in face areas, reducing the risk of a 
methane ignition or explosion at the face.
    The proposed provision requiring a higher ventilating pressure in 
the primary escapeway than the belt entry would assure that air leakage 
moves from this escapeway to the belt entry. If a fire were to occur in 
the belt entry, the primary escapeway would not become contaminated 
with smoke and carbon monoxide, thus maintaining the integrity of the 
escapeway and providing a safe means of egress for miners.
    The proposed provision requiring lifelines to be marked with 
standardized tactile signals would aid miners evacuating the mine where 
visibility is obscured by smoke. New standardized signals would be 
required to: Identify impediments to travel within the escapeway; 
identify the location of personnel doors in adjacent crosscuts 
connected to adjacent escapeways; and identify the location of refuge 
alternatives. Existing signals for direction of travel and SCSR storage 
locations would also be standardized. Standardization of these signals 
would allow for consistent understanding of the signals so that miners 
who transfer between mines will not need to learn new signal systems, 
and generally would reduce the possibility of confusion, delay, or 
injury in an emergency.

C. Compliance Costs \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All costs have been rounded, therefore, some total costs may 
deviate slightly from the sum of individual costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MSHA estimated the first year costs and the yearly costs of the 
proposed rule. MSHA estimated costs to mine operators on the following 
proposed provisions: Improved flame-resistant conveyor belt; 
installation and maintenance of carbon monoxide (CO) sensors in all 
underground coal mines; improved maintenance of conveyor belts and 
conveyor belt entries; atmospheric monitoring system (AMS) operator 
duties; standardized lifeline signals; and other provisions such as 
installation of airlocks along escapeways on personnel doors, an extra 
sensor and alarm unit on point feeds in mines using belt air, and a 
means to remotely close point feeds in mines using belt air where belt 
entry is an alternate escapeway.
    MSHA estimates that the total first year costs would be 
approximately $66 million. Of the $66 million, MSHA estimates 
approximately $44 million in costs for the improved flame-resistant 
belts, and approximately $22 million in costs for the remaining 
provisions.
    MSHA estimates that the proposed rule would result in total yearly 
costs of approximately $52 million. Of this amount, MSHA attributed 
approximately $90,000 in yearly costs to manufacturers of conveyor 
belts. Disaggregated by mine size, yearly costs would be approximately 
$5 million for mine operators with fewer than 20 employees. Of the 223 
mines in this size category, MSHA estimates the cost would be 
approximately $21,000 per mine. Yearly costs would be approximately $43 
million for mine operators with 20-500 employees. Of the 391 mines in 
this size category, MSHA estimates the cost would be approximately 
$110,000 per mine. Yearly costs would be approximately $4

[[Page 35048]]

million for mine operators with more than 500 employees. Of the 10 
mines in this size category, MSHA estimates the costs would be 
approximately $410,000 per mine.
    MSHA attributed the $52 million in yearly costs of the proposed 
provisions to mine operators as follows: Approximately $40.4 million 
for improved flame-resistant conveyor belt; approximately $6.3 million 
for installation and maintenance of CO sensors in all underground coal 
mines; approximately $3.5 million for improved maintenance of conveyor 
belts and conveyor belt entries; approximately $1 million for 
Atmospheric Monitoring System (AMS) operator duties; approximately 
$340,000 for standardized lifeline signals; and approximately $70,000 
for other provisions mentioned above.
    MSHA estimates the yearly cost for smoke sensors to be 
approximately $460,000; however, this cost is not included in the 
yearly costs of this rule because smoke sensors are not commercially 
available for use in underground coal mines.
    Table 1 is a summary of the approximate yearly costs of the 
proposed rule by mine size and proposed provision. The Agency solicits 
comments on the estimated costs of these provisions.

                                                     Table 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Proposed provisions          1-19 employees     20-500 employees     501+ employees           Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improved Flame Resistant Belt...  $3.3 million......  $33.4 million.....  $3.8 million......  $40.4 million.
Improved Flame Resistant Belt     n/a...............  n/a...............  n/a...............  $90,000.
 (Manufacturers).
CO Sensors......................  $670,000..........  $5.5 million......  $180,000..........  $6.3 million.
Maintenance of belts and belt     $750,000..........  $2.6 million......  $130,000..........  $3.5 million.
 entries.
AMS Operator duties.............  $57,000...........  $960,000..........  $29,000...........  $1 million.
Lifeline signals................  $39,000...........  $290,000..........  $15,000...........  $340,000.
Other provisions................  $1,300............  $63,000...........  $3,700............  $68,000.
Total...........................  $5 million........  $43 million.......  $4 million........  $52 million.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Feasibility

    MSHA has concluded that the requirements of the proposed rule would 
be both technologically and economically feasible.

A. Technological Feasibility

    The proposed rule does not involve activities on the frontiers of 
scientific knowledge. Aside from proposed Sec.  75.351(e)(2), 
compliance with the provisions of the proposed rule is technologically 
feasible because the materials, equipment, and methods for implementing 
these requirements currently exist.
    Proposed section 75.351(e)(2) would require mines that use belt air 
to ventilate working sections to install smoke sensors one year after 
approval for use in underground coal mines. Smoke sensors are not 
technologically feasible because these sensors are not commercially 
available for use in underground coal mining. MSHA will notify the 
public when smoke sensors become available and are approved for use in 
underground coal mining.

B. Economic Feasibility

    The yearly compliance cost of the proposed rule would be 
approximately $52 million for underground coal mines, which is 0.37 
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.

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

    Under 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 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 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. The yearly cost of the proposed rule for mines 
with 500 or fewer employees is estimated to be approximately $47.6 
million, or

[[Page 35049]]

approximately $77,000 per mine. This is equal to approximately 0.42 
percent of annual revenue. Since the yearly cost of the proposed rule 
is less than one percent of annual revenues 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. The yearly cost of the proposed rule for 
mines with fewer than 20 employees is estimated to be $4.8 million, or 
approximately $22,000 per mine. This is equal to approximately 1.54 
percent of annual revenue.
    The Agency has provided, in the PREA accompanying this rule, a 
complete analysis of the cost impact on this category of mines. 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 0.42 to 1.54 percent of annual revenue, the 
Agency concludes that this is not a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small mines.

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act

A. Summary

    This proposed rule contains information collection requirements 
that would affect requirements in existing paperwork packages with OMB 
Control Numbers 1219-0009, 1219-0054, 1219-0066, 1219-0073, and 1219-
0088. The proposed provision on AMS operator training would modify ICR 
1219-0009. Proposed provisions for fire protection would modify ICR 
1219-0054. Proposed provisions that affect the information collected 
for approval of flame-resistant conveyor belts would modify ICR 1219-
0066. Proposed provisions to amend the mine map would modify ICR 1219-
0073. Proposed provisions that affect the information contained in the 
ventilation plan for underground coal mines would modify ICR 1219-0088.
    In the first year that the rule is in effect, mine operators would 
incur 3,319 burden hours with related costs of $239,331. Annually, 
starting in the second year that the rule is in effect, mine operators 
would incur 2,350 burden hours with related costs of $183,246. In 
addition, conveyor belt manufacturers would incur 540 burden hours and 
related costs of $27,000 in the first year that the rule is in effect; 
270 burden hours and related costs of $13,500 in the second year that 
the rule is in effect; and 170 burden hours and related costs of $8,500 
in the third year that the rule is in effect.
    Proposed Sec.  14.7, which would require approval holders to retain 
initial sales records of conveyor belts, is considered by MSHA to be an 
information collection requirement that does not result in a paperwork 
burden because it is considered a part of normal business practices.
    For a summary of the burden hours and related costs by proposed 
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.

VIII. 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; and 
it would not increase private sector expenditures by more than $100 
million in any one year or significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments. Accordingly, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
requires no further agency action or analysis.

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.

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.

[[Page 35050]]

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.'' Accordingly, Executive Order 13132 requires no 
further agency action or analysis.

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. Because the proposed rule would result in yearly costs of 
approximately $52 million to the underground coal mining industry, 
relative to annual revenues of $14.1 billion in 2007, the proposed rule 
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.

IX. Proposed Rule

List of Subjects

30 CFR Part 6

    Mine safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Research.

30 CFR Part 14

    Mine safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

30 CFR Part 18

    Mine safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

30 CFR Part 48

    Education, Mine safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

30 CFR Part 75

    Communications equipment, Electric power, Emergency medical 
services, Explosives, Fire prevention, Mine safety and health, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, and under the authority of 
the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 as amended by the Mine 
Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006, MSHA is proposing 
to amend chapter I of title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations as 
follows.

PART 6--TESTING AND EVALUATION BY INDEPENDENT LABORATORIES AND NON-
MSHA PRODUCT SAFETY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for part 6 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 30 U.S.C. 957.

    2. Amend Sec.  6.2 by revising the definition of ``Equivalent non-
MSHA product safety standards'' to read as follows:


Sec.  6.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Equivalent non-MSHA product safety standards. A non-MSHA product 
safety standard, or group of standards, determined by MSHA to provide 
at least the same degree of protection as the applicable MSHA product 
approval requirements in parts 14, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 27, 33, 35, and 
36 of this chapter, or which in modified form provide at least the same 
degree of protection.
* * * * *
    3. Amend Sec.  6.20 to revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  6.20  MSHA acceptance of equivalent non-MSHA product safety 
standards.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Provide at least the same degree of protection as MSHA's 
product approval requirements in parts 14, 18, 19, 20, 33, 35 and 36 of 
this chapter; or
* * * * *
    4. Add new part 14 to subchapter B chapter I, title 30 of Code of 
Federal Regulations to read as follows:

PART 14--REQUIREMENTS FOR THE APPROVAL OF FLAME-RESISTANT CONVEYOR 
BELTS

Subpart A--General Provisions
Sec.
14.1 Purpose and effective date for approval holders.
14.2 Definitions.
14.3 Observers at tests and evaluations.
14.4 Application procedures and requirements.
14.5 Test samples.
14.6 Issuance of approval.
14.7 Approval marking and distribution records.
14.8 Quality assurance.
14.9 Disclosure of information.
14.10 Post-approval product audit.
14.11 Revocation.
Subpart B--Technical Requirements
14.20 Flame resistance.
14.21 Laboratory-scale flame test apparatus.
14.22 Test for flame resistance of conveyor belts.
14.23 New technology.

    Authority: 30 U.S.C. 957.

Subpart A--General Provisions


Sec.  14.1  Purpose and effective date for approval holders.

    This part establishes the flame resistance requirements for MSHA 
approval of conveyor belts for use in underground coal mines. 
Applications for approval or extension of approval submitted after 
[Insert date XXX days after the date of publication in the Federal 
Register] must meet the requirements of this Part.


Sec.  14.2  Definitions.

    The following definitions apply in this part:
    Applicant. An individual or organization that manufactures or 
controls the production of a conveyor belt and applies to MSHA for 
approval of conveyor belt for use in underground coal mines.
    Approval. A document issued by MSHA which states that a conveyor 
belt has met the requirements of this part and which authorizes an 
approval marking identifying the conveyor belt as approved.
    Extension of approval. A document issued by MSHA which states that 
a

[[Page 35051]]

change to a product previously approved by MSHA under this part meets 
the requirements of this part and which authorizes the continued use of 
the approval marking after the appropriate extension number has been 
added.
    Flame-retardant ingredient. A material that inhibits ignition or 
flame propagation.
    Flammable ingredient. A material that is capable of combustion.
    Inert ingredient. A material that does not contribute to 
combustion.
    Post-approval product audit. An examination, testing, or both, by 
MSHA of an approved conveyor belt selected by MSHA to determine if it 
meets the technical requirements and has been manufactured as approved.
    Similar conveyor belt. A conveyor belt that shares the same cover 
compound, general carcass construction, and fabric type as another 
approved conveyor belt.


Sec.  14.3  Observers at tests and evaluations.

    Only MSHA personnel, representatives of the applicant, and other 
persons agreed upon by MSHA and the applicant may be present during 
tests and evaluations conducted under this part.


Sec.  14.4  Application procedures and requirements.

    (a) Application address. Applications for approvals or extensions 
of approval under this Part may be sent to: U.S. Department of Labor, 
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Chief, Approval and 
Certification Center, P.O. Box 251, Industrial Park Road, Triadelphia, 
West Virginia 26059. Alternatively, applications for approval or 
extensions of approval may be filed online at http://www.msha.gov or 
faxed to: Chief, Mine Safety and Health Administration Approval and 
Certification Center at 304-547-2044.
    (b) Approval application. Each application for approval of a 
conveyor belt for use in underground coal mines must include the 
information below, except any information submitted in a prior approval 
application need not be re-submitted, but must be noted in the 
application.
    (1) A technical description of the conveyor belt which includes:
    (i) Trade name or identification number;
    (ii) Cover compound type and designation number;
    (iii) Belt thickness and thickness of top and bottom covers;
    (iv) Presence and type of skim coat;
    (v) Presence and type of friction coat;
    (vi) Carcass construction (number of plies, solid woven);
    (vii) Carcass fabric by textile type and weight (ounce per square 
yard);
    (viii) Presence and type of breaker or floated ply; and
    (ix) The number, type, and size of cords and fabric for metal cord 
belts.
    (2) Formulation information on the compounds in the conveyor belt 
indicated by either:
    (i) Specifying each ingredient by its chemical name along with its 
percentage (weight) and tolerance or percentage range; or
    (ii) Specifying each flame-retardant ingredient by its chemical or 
generic name with its percentage and tolerance or percentage range or 
its minimum percent. List each flammable ingredient by chemical, 
generic, or trade name along with the total percentage of all flammable 
ingredients. List each inert ingredient by chemical, generic, or trade 
name along with the total percentage of all inert ingredients.
    (3) The name, address, and telephone number of the applicant's 
representative responsible for answering any questions regarding the 
application.
    (4) Identification of any similar conveyor belt for which the 
applicant already holds an approval.
    (i) The MSHA assigned approval number of the conveyor belt which 
most closely resembles the new one; and
    (ii) An explanation of any changes from the existing approval.
    (c) Extension of approval. Any change in an approved conveyor belt 
from the documentation on file at MSHA that affects the technical 
requirements of this part must be submitted for approval prior to 
implementing the change. Each application for an extension of approval 
must include:
    (1) The MSHA-assigned approval number for the conveyor belt for 
which the extension is sought;
    (2) A description of the proposed change to the conveyor belt; and
    (3) The name, address, and telephone number of the applicant's 
representative responsible for answering any questions regarding the 
application.
    (d) MSHA will determine if testing, additional information, 
samples, or material is required to evaluate an application. If the 
applicant believes that flame testing is not required, a statement 
explaining the rationale must be included in the application.
    (e) Equivalent non-MSHA product safety standard. An applicant may 
request an equivalency determination to this part under Sec.  6.20 of 
this chapter, for a non-MSHA product safety standard.
    (f) Fees. Fees calculated in accordance with part 5 of this chapter 
must be submitted in accordance with Sec.  5.40.


Sec.  14.5  Test samples.

    Upon request by MSHA, the applicant must submit 3 precut, unrolled, 
flat conveyor belt samples for flame testing. Each sample must be 60 
 \1/4\ inches long (152.4  0.6 cm) by 9  \1/8\ inches (22.9  0.3 cm) wide.


Sec.  14.6  Issuance of approval.

    (a) MSHA will issue an approval or notice of the reasons for 
denying approval after completing the evaluation and testing provided 
in this part.
    (b) An applicant must not advertise or otherwise represent a 
conveyor belt as approved until MSHA has issued an approval.


Sec.  14.7  Approval marking and distribution records.

    (a) An approved conveyor belt must be marketed only under the name 
specified in the approval.
    (b) Approved conveyor belt must be legibly and permanently marked 
with the assigned MSHA approval number for the service life of the 
product. The approval marking must be at least \1/2\ inch (1.27 cm) 
high, placed at intervals not to exceed 60 feet (18.3 m) and repeated 
at least once every foot (0.3 m) across the width of the belt.
    (c) Where the construction of a conveyor belt does not permit 
marking as prescribed above, other permanent marking may be accepted by 
MSHA.
    (d) Applicants granted approval must maintain records of the 
initial sale of each belt having an approval marking. The records must 
be retained for at least 5 years following the initial sale.


Sec.  14.8  Quality assurance.

    Applicants granted an approval or an extension of approval under 
this part must:
    (a) Flame test a sample of each batch, lot, or slab of conveyor 
belts; or flame test or inspect a sample of each batch or lot of the 
materials that contribute to the flame-resistance characteristic. This 
will assure that the finished conveyor belt slab will meet the flame-
resistance test.
    (b) Calibrate instruments used for the inspection and testing in 
paragraph (a) of this section according to the instrument 
manufacturer's specifications. Instruments must be calibrated using 
standards set by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 
U.S. Department of Commerce or other nationally or internationally 
recognized standards. The instruments used must be accurate to at least 
one significant figure beyond the desired accuracy.
    (c) Control production so that the conveyor belt is manufactured in 
accordance with the approval

[[Page 35052]]

document. If a third party is assembling or manufacturing all or part 
of an approved belt, the approval holder shall assure that the product 
is manufactured as approved.
    (d) Immediately notify the MSHA Approval and Certification Center 
of any information that a conveyor belt has distributed that does not 
meet the specifications of the approval. This notification must include 
a description of the nature and extent of the problem, the locations 
where the conveyor belt has been distributed, and the approval holder's 
plans for corrective action.


Sec.  14.9  Disclosure of information.

    (a) All proprietary information concerning product specifications 
and performance submitted to MSHA by the applicant will be protected.
    (b) MSHA will notify the applicant or approval holder of requests 
for disclosure of information concerning its conveyor belts, and 
provide an opportunity to present its position prior to any decision on 
disclosure.


Sec.  14.10  Post-approval product audit.

    (a) Approved conveyor belts will be subject to periodic audits by 
MSHA to determine conformity with the technical requirements upon which 
the approval was based. MSHA will select an approved conveyor belt to 
be audited; the selected belt will be representative of that 
distributed for use in mines. Upon request to MSHA, the approval-holder 
may obtain any final report resulting from the audit.
    (b) No more than once a year, except for cause, the approval-
holder, at MSHA's request, must make 3 samples of an approved conveyor 
belt of the size specified in Sec.  14.5 available at no cost to MSHA 
for an audit. If a product is not available because it is not currently 
in production, the manufacturer will notify MSHA when it is available. 
The approval-holder may observe any tests conducted during the audit.
    (c) A conveyor belt will be subject to audit for cause at any time 
MSHA believes the approval holder product is not in compliance with the 
technical requirements of the approval.


Sec.  14.11  Revocation.

    (a) MSHA may revoke for cause an approval issued under this part if 
the conveyor belt--
    (1) Fails to meet the technical requirements; or
    (2) Creates a danger or hazard when used in a mine.
    (b) Prior to revoking an approval, the approval-holder will be 
informed in writing of MSHA's intention to revoke. The notice will--
    (1) Explain the reasons for the proposed revocation; and
    (2) Provide the approval-holder an opportunity to demonstrate or 
achieve compliance with the product approval requirements.
    (c) Upon request to MSHA, the approval-holder will be given the 
opportunity for a hearing.
    (d) If a conveyor belt poses an imminent danger or hazard to the 
safety or health of miners, an approval may be immediately suspended 
without written notice of the Agency's intention to revoke. The 
suspension may continue until the revocation proceedings are completed.

Subpart B--Technical Requirements


Sec.  14.20  Flame resistance.

    Conveyor belts for use in underground coal mines must be flame-
resistant and:
    (a) Tested in accordance with Sec.  14.22 of this part; or
    (b) Tested in accordance with an alternate test determined by MSHA 
to be equivalent under 30 CFR 6.20 and 14.4(e).


Sec.  14.21  Laboratory-scale flame test apparatus.

    The principal parts of the apparatus used to test for flame 
resistance of conveyor belts are as follows--
    (a) A horizontal test chamber 66 inches (167.6 cm) long by 18 
inches (45.7 cm) square (inside dimensions) constructed from 1 inch 
(2.5 cm) thick Marinite I[reg], or equivalent insulating material.
    (b) A 16-gauge (0.16 cm) stainless steel duct section which tapers 
over a length of at least 24 inches (61 cm) from a 20 inch (51 cm) 
square cross-sectional area at the test chamber connection to a 12 inch 
(30.5 cm) diameter exhaust duct, or equivalent. The interior surface of 
the tapered duct section must be lined with \1/2\ inch (1.27 cm) thick 
ceramic blanket insulation, or equivalent insulating material. The 
tapered duct must be tightly connected to the test chamber.
    (c) A U-shaped gas-fueled impinged jet burner ignition source, 
measuring 12 inches (30.5 cm) long and 4 inches (10.2 cm) wide, with 
two parallel rows of 6 jets each. Each jet is spaced alternately along 
the U-shaped burner tube. The 2 rows of jets are slanted so that they 
point toward each other and the flame from each jet impinges upon each 
other in pairs. The burner fuel must be at least 98 percent methane 
(technical grade) or natural gas containing at least 96 percent 
combustible gases, which includes not less than 93 percent methane.
    (d) A removable steel rack, consisting of 2 parallel rails and 
supports that form a 7  \1/8\ inches (17.8  0.3 
cm) wide by 60  \1/8\ inches (152.4  0.3 cm) 
long assembly to hold a belt sample.
    (1) The 2 parallel rails, with a 5  \1/8\ inches (12.7 
 0.3 cm) space between them, comprise the top of the rack. 
The rails and supports must be constructed of slotted angle iron with 
holes along the top surface.
    (2) The top surface of the rack must be 8  \1/8\ inches 
(20.3  0.3 cm) from the inside roof of the test chamber.


Sec.  14.22  Test for flame resistance of conveyor belts.

    (a) Test procedures. The test must be conducted in the following 
sequence using a flame test apparatus meeting the specifications of 
Sec.  14.21:
    (1) Lay three samples of the belt, 60  \1/4\ inches 
(152.4  0.6 cm) long by 9  \1/8\ inches (22.9 
 0.3 cm) wide, flat at a temperature of 70  10 
[deg]Fahrenheit (21  5 [deg]Centigrade) for at least 24 
hours prior to the test;
    (2) For each of three tests, place one belt sample with the load-
carrying surface facing up on the rails of the rack so that the sample 
extends 1  \1/8\ inch (2.5  0.3 cm) beyond the 
front of the rails and 1  \1/8\ inch (2.5  0.3 
cm) from the outer lengthwise edge of each rail;
    (3) Fasten the sample to the rails of the rack with steel washers 
and cotter pins. The cotter pins shall extend at least \3/4\ inch (1.9 
cm) below the rails. Equivalent fasteners may be used. Make a series of 
5 holes approximately \9/32\ inch (0.7 cm) in diameter along both edges 
of the belt sample, starting at the first rail hole within 2 inches 
(5.1 cm) from the front edge of the sample. Make the next hole 5  \1/4\ inches (12.7  0.6 cm) from the first, the 
third hole 5  \1/4\ inches (12.7  0.6 cm) from 
the second, the fourth hole approximately midway along the length of 
the sample, and the fifth hole near the end of the sample. After 
placing a washer over each sample hole, insert a cotter pin through the 
hole and spread it apart to secure the sample to the rail;
    (4) Center the rack and sample in the test chamber with the front 
end of the sample 6  \1/2\ inches (15.2  1.27 
cm) from the entrance;
    (5) Measure the airflow with a 4-inch (10.2 cm) diameter vane 
anemometer, or an equivalent device, placed on the centerline of the 
belt sample 12  \1/2\ inches (30.5  1.27 cm) 
from the chamber entrance. Adjust the airflow passing through the 
chamber to 200  20 ft/min (61  6 m/min);
    (6) Before starting the test on each sample, the inner surface 
temperature of the chamber roof measured at points 6

[[Page 35053]]

 \1/2\, 30  \1/2\, and 60  \1/2\ 
inches (15.2  1.27, 76.2  1.27, and 152.4 
 1.27 cm) from the front entrance of the chamber must not 
exceed 95 [deg]Fahrenheit (35 [deg]Centigrade) at any of these points 
with the specified airflow passing through the chamber. The temperature 
of the air entering the chamber during the test on each sample must not 
be less than 50 [deg]Fahrenheit (10 [deg] Centigrade);
    (7) Center the burner in front of the sample's leading edge with 
the plane, defined by the tips of the burner jets, \3/4\  
\1/8\ inch (1.9  0.3 cm) from the front edge of the belt;
    (8) With the burner lowered away from the sample, set the gas flow 
at 1.2  0.1 standard cubic feet per minute (SCFM) (34 
 2.8 liters per minute) and then ignite the gas burner. 
Maintain the gas flow to the burner throughout the 5 to 5.1 minute 
ignition period;
    (9) After applying the burner flame to the front edge of the sample 
for a 5 to 5.1 minute ignition period, lower the burner away from the 
sample and extinguish the burner flame;
    (10) After completion of each test, determine the undamaged portion 
across the entire width of the sample. Blistering without charring does 
not constitute damage.
    (b) Acceptable performance. Each tested sample must exhibit an 
undamaged portion across its entire width.
    (c) MSHA may modify the procedures of the flammability test for 
belts constructed of thicknesses more than \3/4\ inch (1.9 cm).


Sec.  14.23  New technology.

    MSHA may approve a conveyor belt that incorporates technology for 
which the requirements of this part are not applicable if the Agency 
determines that the conveyor belt is as safe as those which meet the 
requirements of this part.

PART 18--ELECTRIC MOTOR-DRIVEN MINE EQUIPMENT AND ACCESSORIES

    5. The authority citation for part 18 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 30 U.S.C. 957, 961.


Sec.  18.1  [Amended]

    6. Section 18.1 is amended by revising the phrase ``hoses and 
conveyor belts'' to read ``hoses''.


Sec.  18.2  [Amended]

    7. Section 18.2 is amended by revising the phrase ``hose or 
conveyor belt'' to read ``hose'' in the definitions of ``Acceptance'', 
``Acceptance Marking'', and ``Applicant'' and removing the definition 
for ``Fire-resistant''.


Sec.  18.6  [Amended]

    8. Section 18.6 is amended as follows:
    a. Paragraph (a)(1) is amended by revising the phrase ``hose or 
conveyor belt'' to read ``hose''.
    b. Paragraph (c) is removed and reserved.
    c. Paragraph (i) is amended by revising the phrase ``hose or 
conveyor belt'' to read ``hose'' and removing the words ``conveyor 
belt--a sample of each type 8 inches long cut across the entire width 
of the belt''.


Sec.  18.9  [Amended]

    9-11. Section 18.9(a) is amended by revising the phrase ``hose or 
conveyor belt'' to read ``hose''.


Sec.  18.65  [Amended]

    12. Section 18.65 is amended by revising the phrase in the heading, 
``Flame test of conveyor belting and hose'' to read ``Flame test of 
hose'' and by removing and reserving paragraph (a)(1) and removing and 
reserving paragraph (f)(1).

PART 48--TRAINING AND RETRAINING OF MINERS

    13. The authority citation for part 48 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811, 825.

Subpart B--Training and Retraining of Miners Working at Surface 
Mines and Surface Areas of Underground Mines

    14. Amend Sec.  48.27 to revise the first sentence in paragraph (a) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  48.27  Training of miners assigned to a task in which they have 
had no previous experience; minimum courses of instruction.

    (a) Miners assigned to new work tasks as mobile equipment 
operators, drilling machine operators, haulage and conveyor systems 
operators, ground control machine operators, AMS operators, and those 
in blasting operations shall not perform new work tasks in these 
categories until training prescribed in this paragraph and paragraph 
(b) of this section has been completed.* * *
* * * * *

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

Subpart B--Qualified and Certified Persons

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

    Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811.

    16. Section 75.156 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  75.156  AMS operator, qualifications.

    (a) To be qualified as an AMS operator, a person shall be provided 
with task training on duties and responsibilities at each mine where an 
AMS operator is employed in accordance with the mine operator's 
approved Part 48 training plan.
    (b) An AMS operator must be able to demonstrate to an authorized 
representative of the Secretary that he/she is qualified to perform in 
the assigned position.

Subpart D--Ventilation

    17. In Sec.  75.333, paragraph (c)(4) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  75.333  Ventilation controls.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) An airlock shall be established where the air pressure 
differential between air courses creates a static force exceeding 125 
pounds on closed personnel doors along escapeways.
* * * * *
    18. In Sec.  75.350, paragraphs (a)(2), (b) introductory text, 
(b)(3), and (d)(1) are revised, and (b)(7), (b)(8), and (d)(7) are 
added to read as follows:


Sec.  75.350  Belt air course ventilation.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Effective [insert date one year after date of publication of 
the final rule in the Federal Register], unless otherwise approved by 
the District Manager in the mine ventilation plan, the air velocity in 
the belt entry must be at least 50 feet per minute. Air velocities must 
be compatible with all fire detection systems and fire suppression 
systems used in the belt entry.
    (b) The use of air from a belt air course to ventilate a working 
section or an area where mechanized mining equipment is being installed 
or removed shall be permitted only when evaluated and approved by the 
District Manager in the mine ventilation plan. The mine operator must 
provide justification in the plan that the use of air from a belt entry 
would afford at least the same measure of protection where belt haulage 
entries are not used to ventilate working places. In addition, the 
following requirements must be met:
* * * * *
    (3)(i) The average concentration of respirable dust in the belt air 
course, when used as a section intake air course, must be maintained at 
or below 1.0 mg/m\3\.
    (ii) Where miners on the working section are on a reduced standard 
below

[[Page 35054]]

1.0 mg/m\3\, the average concentration of respirable dust in the belt 
entry must be at or below the lowest applicable respirable dust 
standard on that section.
    (iii) A permanent designated area (DA) for dust measurements must 
be established at a point no greater than 50 feet upwind from the 
section loading point in the belt entry when the belt air flows over 
the loading point or no greater than 50 feet upwind from the point 
where belt air is mixed with air from another intake air course near 
the loading point. The DA must be specified and approved in the 
ventilation plan.
* * * * *
    (7) The air velocity in the belt entry must be at least 100 feet 
per minute. When requested by the mine operator, the District Manager 
may approve lower velocities in the ventilation plan based on specific 
mine conditions.
    (8) The air velocity in the belt entry must not exceed 1,000 feet 
per minute. When requested by the mine operator, the District Manager 
may approve higher velocities in the ventilation plan based on specific 
mine conditions.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) The air current that will pass through the point-feed regulator 
must be monitored for carbon monoxide or smoke at a point within 50 
feet upwind of the point-feed regulator. A second point must be 
monitored 1,000 feet upwind of the point-feed regulator unless the mine 
operator requests a lesser distance be approved by the District Manager 
in the mine ventilation plan based on mine specific conditions;
* * * * *
    (7) Where point-feeding air from a primary escapeway to a belt 
entry designated as an alternate escapeway, point-feed regulators must 
be equipped with a means to remotely close the regulator or any other 
means to isolate the two escapeways. The AMS operator, after 
consultation with the responsible person and section foreman, must be 
capable of performing this function from the designated surface 
location.
    19. Paragraph (b)(2), (e), and (q) of Sec.  75.351 are revised to 
read as follows:


Sec.  75.351  Atmospheric monitoring systems.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) The mine operator must designate an AMS operator to monitor and 
promptly respond to all AMS signals. The AMS operator must have as a 
primary duty the responsibility to monitor the malfunction, alert and 
alarm signals of the AMS, and to notify appropriate personnel of these 
signals.
* * * * *
    (e) Location of sensors-belt air course.
    (1) In addition to the requirements of paragraph (d) of this 
section, any AMS used to monitor belt air courses under Sec.  75.350(b) 
must have approved sensors to monitor for carbon monoxide at the 
following locations:
    (i) At or near the working section belt tailpiece in the air stream 
ventilating the belt entry. In longwall mining systems the sensor must 
be located upwind in the belt entry at a distance no greater than 150 
feet from the mixing point where intake air is mixed with the belt air 
at or near the tailpiece;
    (ii) No more than 50 feet upwind from the point where the belt air 
course is combined with another air course or splits into multiple air 
courses;
    (iii) At intervals not to exceed 1,000 feet along each belt entry. 
However, in areas along each belt entry where air velocities are 
between 50 and 100 feet per minute, spacing of sensors must not exceed 
500 feet. In areas along each belt entry where air velocities are less 
than 50 feet per minute, the sensor spacing must not exceed 350 feet;
    (iv) Not more than 100 feet downwind of each belt drive unit, each 
tailpiece transfer point, and each belt take-up. If the belt drive, 
tailpiece, and/or take-up for a single transfer point are installed 
together in the same air course, and the distance between the units is 
less than 100 feet, they may be monitored with one sensor downwind of 
the last component. If the distance between the units exceeds 100 feet, 
additional sensors are required downwind of each belt drive unit, each 
tailpiece transfer point, and each belt take-up; and
    (v) At other locations in any entry that is part of the belt air 
course as required and specified in the mine ventilation plan.
    (2) Smoke sensors must be installed to monitor the belt entry under 
Sec.  75.350(b) at the following locations:
    (i) At or near the working section belt tailpiece in the air stream 
ventilating the belt entry. In longwall mining systems the sensor must 
be located upwind in the belt entry at a distance no greater than 150 
feet from the mixing point where intake air is mixed with the belt air 
at or near the tailpiece;
    (ii) Not more than 100 feet downwind of each belt drive unit, each 
tailpiece transfer point, and each belt take-up. If the belt drive, 
tailpiece, and/or take-up for a single transfer point are installed 
together in the same air course, and the distance between the units is 
less than 100 feet, they may be monitored with one sensor downwind of 
the last component. If the distance between the units exceeds 100 feet, 
additional sensors are required downwind of each belt drive unit, each 
tailpiece transfer point, and each belt take-up; and
    (iii) At intervals not to exceed 3,000 feet along each belt entry.
    (iv) This provision shall be effective one year after the Secretary 
has determined that a smoke sensor is available to reliably detect fire 
in underground coal mines.
* * * * *
    (q) Training.
    (1) All AMS operators must be trained annually in the proper 
operation of the AMS. This training must include the following 
subjects:
    (i) Familiarity with underground mining systems;
    (ii) Basic atmospheric monitoring system requirements;
    (iii) The mine emergency evacuation and firefighting program of 
instruction;
    (iv) The mine ventilation system including planned air directions;
    (v) Appropriate response to alert, alarm and malfunction signals;
    (vi) Use of mine communication systems including emergency 
notification procedures; and
    (vii) AMS recordkeeping requirements.
    (2) At least once every six months, all AMS operators must travel 
to all working sections.
    (3) A record of the content of training, the person conducting the 
training, and the date the training was conducted, must be maintained 
at the mine for at least two years by the mine operator.
* * * * *
    20. Section 75.352 is amended by revising paragraph (f) and by 
adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (f) If the minimum air velocity is not maintained when required 
under Sec.  75.350(b)(7), immediate action must be taken to return the 
ventilation system to proper operation. While the ventilation system is 
being corrected, operation of the belt may continue only while a 
trained person(s) patrols and continuously monitors for carbon monoxide 
or smoke as set forth in Sec. Sec.  75.352(e)(3) through (7), so that 
the affected areas will be traveled each hour in their entirety.
    (g) The AMS shall automatically provide both a visual and audible 
signal in the belt entry at the point-feed regulator location, at 
affected sections, and at the designated surface location when carbon 
monoxide concentrations reach:
    (1) The alert level at both point-feed intake monitoring sensors; 
or
    (2) The alarm level at either point-feed intake monitoring sensor.

[[Page 35055]]

    21. Section 75.371 is amended by revising paragraphs (jj), (mm), 
(nn), and by adding paragraphs (yy) and (zz) to read as follows:


Sec.  75.371  Mine ventilation plan; contents.

* * * * *
    (jj) The locations and approved velocities at those locations where 
air velocities in the belt entry are above or below the limits set 
forth in Sec.  75.350(a)(2) or Sec. Sec.  75.350(b)(7) and 
75.350(b)(8).
* * * * *
    (mm) The location of any diesel-discriminating, and additional 
carbon monoxide or smoke sensors installed in the belt air course.
    (nn) The length of the time delay or any other method used to 
reduce the number of non-fire related alert and alarm signals from 
carbon monoxide sensors.
* * * * *
    (yy) The locations where airlock doors are installed between air 
courses.
    (zz) The locations where the pressure differential cannot be 
maintained from the primary escapeway to the belt entry.
    22. Section 75.380 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(7)(v) and 
(vi) and (f)(1) and adding (d)(7)(vii), (viii) and (ix) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  75.380  Escapeways; bituminous and lignite mines.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (7) * * *
    (v) Equipped with one directional indicator cone, signifying the 
route of escape, placed at intervals not exceeding 100 feet. Cones 
shall be installed so that the tapered section points in by;
    (vi) Securely attached to and marked to provide tactile feedback 
indicating the location of any SCSR storage locations in the 
escapeways. The tactile feedback for SCSR storage locations shall be 
six back-to-back directional cones;
    (vii) Marked to provide tactile feedback distinguishable from other 
markings to indicate the location of readily accessible personnel doors 
installed in adjacent crosscuts connecting escapeways. The tactile 
feedback for personnel doors shall be four back-to-back directional 
cones;
    (viii) Marked to provide tactile feedback distinguishable from 
other markings to indicate the location of physical impediments in the 
escapeway. The tactile feedback for physical impediments shall be two 
back-to-back directional cones; and
    (ix) Marked to provide tactile feedback distinguishable from other 
markings to indicate the location of refuge alternatives. The tactile 
feedback for a refuge alternative location shall be a two-foot length 
of rigid spiraled coil (cork-screw style). Another line must be 
attached from the lifeline to the refuge alternative.
* * * * *
    (f) Primary escapeway. (1) One escapeway that is ventilated with 
intake air shall be designated as the primary escapeway. The primary 
escapeway shall have a higher ventilation pressure than the belt entry 
unless the mine operator submits an alternative in the mine ventilation 
plan to protect the integrity of the primary escapeway, based on mine 
specific conditions, which is approved by the District Manager.
* * * * *
    23. Section 75.381 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(5)(v) and 
(vi) and (e), and adding (c)(5)(vii), (viii) and (ix) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  75.381  Escapeways; anthracite mines.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (v) Equipped with one directional indicator cone, signifying the 
route of escape, placed at intervals not exceeding 100 feet. Cones 
shall be installed so that the tapered section points in by;
    (vi) Securely attached to and marked to provide tactile feedback 
indicating the location of any SCSR storage locations in the 
escapeways. The tactile feedback for SCSR storage locations shall be 
six back-to-back directional cones;
    (vii) Marked to provide tactile feedback distinguishable from other 
markings to indicate the location of readily accessible personnel doors 
installed in adjacent crosscuts connecting escapeways. The tactile 
feedback for personnel doors shall be four back-to-back directional 
cones;
    (viii) Marked to provide tactile feedback distinguishable from 
other markings to indicate the location of physical impediments in the 
escapeway. The tactile feedback for physical impediments shall be two 
back-to-back directional cones; and
    (ix) Marked to provide tactile feedback distinguishable from other 
markings to indicate the location of refuge alternatives. The tactile 
feedback for a refuge alternative location shall be a two-foot length 
of rigid spiraled coil (cork-screw style). Another line must be 
attached from the lifeline to the refuge alternative.
* * * * *
    (e) Primary escapeway. One escapeway that shall be ventilated with 
intake air shall be designated as the primary escapeway. The primary 
escapeway shall have a higher ventilation pressure than the belt entry 
unless the mine operator submits an alternative in the mine ventilation 
plan to protect the integrity of the primary escapeway, based on mine 
specific conditions, which is approved by the District Manager.
* * * * *

Subpart L--Fire Protection

    24. Section 75.1103-4 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  75.1103-4  Automatic fire sensor and warning device systems; 
installation; minimum requirements.

    (a) Effective [insert date one year after date of publication of 
the final rule in the Federal Register], automatic fire sensor and 
warning device systems that use carbon monoxide sensors shall provide 
identification of fire along all belt conveyors.
    (1) Carbon monoxide sensors shall be installed at the following 
locations:
    (i) Not more than 100 feet downwind of each belt drive unit, each 
tailpiece transfer point, and each belt take-up. If the belt drive, 
tailpiece, and/or take-up for a single transfer point are installed 
together in the same air course, and the distance between the units is 
less than 100 feet, they may be monitored with one sensor downwind of 
the last component. If the distance between the units exceeds 100 feet, 
additional sensors are required downwind of each belt drive unit, each 
tailpiece transfer point, and each belt take-up;
    (ii) Not more than 100 feet downwind of each section loading point;
    (iii) Along the belt entry so that the spacing between sensors does 
not exceed 1,000 feet. Where air velocities are less than 50 feet per 
minute, spacing must not exceed 350 feet; and
    (iv) No more than 50 feet upwind from the point where the belt air 
course is combined with another air course or splits into multiple air 
courses.
    (2) Where used, sensors responding to radiation, smoke, gases, or 
other indications of fire, shall be spaced at regular intervals to 
provide protection equivalent to carbon monoxide sensors, and installed 
within the time specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
    (3) When the distance from the tailpiece at loading points to the 
first outby sensor reaches the spacing requirements in Sec.  75.1103-
4(a)(1)(iii), an additional sensor shall be installed

[[Page 35056]]

and put in operation within 24 production shift hours. When sensors of 
the kind described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section are used, such 
sensor shall be installed and put in operation within 24 production 
shift hours after the equivalent distance which has been established 
for the sensor from the tailpiece at loading points to the first outby 
sensor is first reached.
    (b) Automatic fire sensor and warning device systems shall be 
installed so as to minimize the possibility of damage from roof falls 
and the moving belt and its load. Sensors must be installed near the 
center in the upper third of the entry, in a manner that does not 
expose personnel working on the system to unsafe conditions. Sensors 
must not be located in abnormally high areas or in other locations 
where air flow patterns do not permit products of combustion to be 
carried to the sensors.
* * * * *
    25. The section heading and paragraph (a) of Sec.  75.1103-5 is 
revised and paragraphs (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h) are added to read as 
follows:


Sec.  75.1103-5  Automatic fire warning devices; actions and response.

    (a) When the carbon monoxide level reaches 10 parts per million 
above the established ambient level at any sensor location, automatic 
fire sensor and warning device systems shall upon activation provide an 
effective warning signal at the following locations:
    (1) At working sections and other work locations where miners may 
be endangered from a fire in the belt entry.
    (2) At a manned surface location where personnel have an assigned 
post of duty. The manned surface location must have:
    (i) A telephone or equivalent communication with all miners who may 
be endangered and
    (ii) A map or schematic that shows the locations of sensors, and 
the intended air flow direction at these locations. This map or 
schematic must be updated within 24 hours of any change in this 
information.
    (3) The automatic fire sensor and warning device system shall be 
monitored for a period of 4 hours after the belt is stopped, unless an 
examination for hot rollers and fire is made as prescribed in Sec.  
75.1103-4(e).
* * * * *
    (d) When a malfunction or warning signal is received at the manned 
surface location, the sensors that are activated must be identified and 
appropriate personnel immediately notified.
    (e) Upon notification of a malfunction or warning signal, 
appropriate personnel must immediately initiate an investigation to 
determine the cause of the malfunction or warning signal and take the 
required actions set forth in paragraph (f) of this section.
    (f) If any sensor indicates a warning, the following actions must 
be taken unless the mine operator determines that the signal does not 
present a hazard to miners:
    (1) Appropriate personnel must notify miners in affected working 
sections, in affected areas where mechanized mining equipment is being 
installed or removed, and at other locations specified in the approved 
mine emergency evacuation and firefighting program of instruction; and
    (2) All miners in the affected areas, unless assigned emergency 
response duties, must be immediately withdrawn to a safe location 
identified in the mine emergency evacuation and firefighting program of 
instruction.
    (g) If the warning signal will be activated during calibration of 
sensors, personnel manning the surface location must be notified prior 
to and upon completion of calibration. Miners on affected working 
sections, areas where mechanized mining equipment is being installed or 
removed, or other areas designated in the approved emergency evacuation 
and firefighting program of instruction must be notified at the 
beginning and completion of calibration.
    (h) If any fire detection component becomes inoperative, immediate 
action must be taken to repair the component. While repairs are being 
made, operation of the belt may continue if the following requirements 
are met:
    (1) If one sensor becomes inoperative, a trained person must 
continuously monitor for carbon monoxide at the inoperative sensor;
    (2) If two or more adjacent sensors become inoperative, trained 
persons must patrol and continuously monitor the affected areas for 
carbon monoxide so that they will be traveled each hour in their 
entirety. Alternatively, a trained person must be stationed at each 
inoperative sensor to monitor for carbon monoxide;
    (3) If the complete fire detection system becomes inoperative, 
trained persons must patrol and continuously monitor the affected areas 
for carbon monoxide so that they will be traveled each hour in their 
entirety;
    (4) Trained persons who conduct monitoring under this section must 
have two-way voice communication capability, at intervals not to exceed 
2,000 feet, and must report carbon monoxide concentrations to the 
surface at intervals not to exceed one hour;
    (5) Trained persons who conduct monitoring under this section must 
immediately report to the surface, any concentration of carbon monoxide 
that reaches 10 parts per million above the established ambient level, 
unless the mine operator knows that the source of the carbon monoxide 
does not present a hazard to miners; and
    (6) Handheld detectors used to monitor the belt entry under this 
section must have a detection level equivalent to that of the system's 
carbon monoxide sensors.
    26. Section 75.1103-6 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  75.1103-6  Automatic fire sensors; actuation of fire suppression 
systems.

    Point-type heat sensors or automatic fire sensor and warning device 
systems may be used to actuate deluge-type water systems, foam 
generator systems, multipurpose dry-powder systems, or other equivalent 
automatic fire suppression systems.
    27. Section 75.1103-8 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  75.1103-8  Automatic fire sensor and warning device systems; 
inspection and test requirements.

    (a) Automatic fire sensor and warning device systems shall be 
examined at least once each shift when belts are operated as part of a 
production shift. A functional test of the warning signals shall be 
made at least once every seven days. Inspection and maintenance of such 
systems shall be by a qualified person.
    (b) A record of the functional test conducted in accordance with 
paragraph (a) of this section shall be maintained by the operator and 
kept for a period of one year.
    (c) Sensors shall be calibrated at intervals not to exceed 31 days 
in accordance with the manufacturer's calibration instructions. A 
record of the sensor calibrations shall be maintained by the operator 
and kept for a period of one year.
    28. Section 75.1108 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  75.1108  Approved conveyor belts.

    (a) Until [insert date one year after date of publication of final 
rule in the Federal Register] conveyor belts shall be:
    (1) Approved under Part 14 of this chapter; or
    (2) Accepted under Sec.  18.65 of this chapter.
    (b) Effective [insert date one year after date of publication of 
final rule in the Federal Register] all conveyor belts purchased for 
use in underground coal

[[Page 35057]]

mines shall be approved under Part 14 of this chapter.


Sec.  75.1108-1  [Removed]

    29. Remove Sec.  75.1108-1.

Subpart R--Miscellaneous

    30. Section 75.1731 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  75.1731  Maintenance of belt conveyors and belt conveyor entries.

    (a) Damaged rollers and other malfunctioning belt conveyor 
components must be immediately repaired or replaced.
    (b) Conveyor belts must be properly aligned to prevent the moving 
belt from rubbing against the structure or components.
    (c) Noncombustible materials shall not be allowed to accumulate in 
the belt conveyor entry.
    (d) Splicing of any approved conveyor belt must maintain flame-
resistant properties of the belt.


[FR Doc. E8-13631 Filed 6-18-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-43-P