[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 251 (Wednesday, December 31, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 80580-80616]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-30639]



[[Page 80579]]

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

Part III





Department of Labor





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



Mine Safety and Health Administration



30 CFR Parts 6, 14, 18, et al.



Flame-Resistant Conveyor Belt, Fire Prevention and Detection, and Use 
of Air From the Belt Entry; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 251 / Wednesday, December 31, 2008 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 80580]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mine Safety and Health Administration

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

RIN 1219-AB59


Flame-Resistant Conveyor Belt, Fire Prevention and Detection, and 
Use of Air From the Belt Entry

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule 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. The Panel was established under Section 11 of the Mine 
Improvement and New Emergency Response (MINER) Act of 2006. The final 
rule is consistent with the Panel's recommendations and includes 
requirements for: Flame-resistant conveyor belts; training Atmospheric 
Monitoring System operators; levels of respirable dust in belt entries; 
airlocks along escapeways; minimum and maximum air velocities; approval 
for the use of air from the belt entry to ventilate working sections; 
monitoring 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.

DATES: Effective Date: The final rule is effective on December 31, 
2008.
    Compliance Dates: Details are in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 
section of this document.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Compliance Dates

    Each mine operator shall comply with the following sections by the 
dates listed below.
    1. Sec.  48.27(a) and Sec. Sec.  75.156(a), 75.350(b), and 75.1731 
by March 2, 2009.
    2. Sec.  75.333(c)(4) by March 31, 2009.
    3. Sec. Sec.  75.380(d)(7), 75.380(f), 75.381(e)(5), and 75.381(f) 
by June 30, 2009.
    4. Sec. Sec.  75.350(a)(2), 75.351(e)(2), 75.1103-4(a), 75.1108(a), 
and 75.1108(b) December 31, 2009.
    5. Sec.  75.1108(c) by December 31, 2018.
    The outline of the final rule is as follows:

I. Introduction
II. Statutory and Rulemaking Background
III. Section-by-Section Analysis
    A. Flame-Resistant Conveyor Belt
    1. General
    2. Discussion of Final Rule
    3. Conforming Amendments
    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 Final Rule
IV. Regulatory Economic Analysis
    A. Executive Order 12866
    B. Population-at-Risk
    C. Benefits
    D. 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. Final Rule

I. Introduction

    This final rule addresses the recommendations of the Technical 
Study Panel (Panel), which was established under Section 11 of the 
MINER Act. The Secretary of Labor chartered the Panel on December 22, 
2006 (71 FR 77069).
    On December 20, 2007, the Panel issued its final report, which 
included the following 20 recommendations passed by unanimous vote:
     Recommendation 1--Conveyor belt flammability testing and 
approval;
     Recommendation 2--Other belt tests;
     Recommendation 3--Improved fire resistance standards for 
all underground coal mines;
     Recommendation 4--Coordinating belt testing with other 
countries;
     Recommendation 5--Belt entry and conveyor belt 
maintenance;
     Recommendation 6--Special requirements for the use of belt 
air;
     Recommendation 7--Belt air approval recommendation;
     Recommendation 8--Discontinuing point-type heat sensors;
     Recommendation 9--Smoke sensors;
     Recommendation 10--Use of diesel-discriminating sensors;
     Recommendation 11--Review of AMS records;
     Recommendation 12--AMS operator training certification;
     Recommendation 13--Minimum and maximum air velocities;
     Recommendation 14--Escapeways and leakage;
     Recommendation 15--Lifelines;
     Recommendation 16--Point-feeding;
     Recommendation 17--Respirable dust;
     Recommendation 18--Mine methane;
     Recommendation 19--Inspections; and
     Recommendation 20--Research.
    A copy of the Panel's report is available on MSHA's Web site at: 
http://www.msha.gov/beltair/BeltAirFinalReport122007.pdf.
    The final rule is based on the Panel's recommendations, Agency data 
and experience, and comments and testimony received during the 
rulemaking process. MSHA is providing delayed compliance dates for some 
requirements in the final rule for mine operators to have adequate time 
to comply.

II. Statutory and Rulemaking Background

    The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-161, 
December 26, 2007) requires the Secretary to publish regulations, 
consistent with the recommendations of the 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.


[[Page 80581]]


The regulations must be finalized by December 31, 2008.
    Based on the Panel's recommendations, MSHA published a proposed 
rule on 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 in 
the Federal Register on June 19, 2008 (73 FR 35026). On that same date, 
MSHA published a Request for Information (RFI) in the Federal Register 
on criteria for testing the toxicity and density of smoke produced from 
burning conveyor belt or similar materials (73 FR 35057).
    The Agency will review relevant information received on the RFI and 
make a determination on appropriate regulatory action.
    The Agency held four public hearings on: August 19, 2008 in Salt 
Lake City, UT; August 21, 2008 in Lexington, KY; August 26, 2008 in 
Charleston, WV; and August 28, 2008 in Birmingham, AL. The comment 
period closed on September 8, 2008.
    Like the proposal, the final rule includes new and revised safety 
standards for underground coal mines for those Panel recommendations 
that required rulemaking. The following five recommendations did not 
require rulemaking: Recommendation 2, concerning ``Other Belt Tests,'' 
recommends that MSHA adopt a drum friction test to be utilized for a 
period of two years to evaluate and assess the contribution to conveyor 
belt fire safety of such a test. MSHA is continuing to evaluate 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, and is consistent with the Panel's recommendation. 
Recommendation 4, concerning ``Coordinating belt testing with other 
countries,'' recommends that MSHA establish contacts and maintain 
dialogue with other key mining countries. MSHA's technical support 
program area maintains continuing contact and dialogue with other key 
mining countries. Recommendation 11, concerning ``Review of AMS 
records,'' recommends that MSHA perform regular, periodic reviews of 
atmospheric monitoring system (AMS) records at mines using air from the 
belt entry to ventilate working sections. In addition, MSHA already 
conducts periodic reviews of AMS records during regular inspections of 
the mine. Recommendation 19, concerning ``Inspections of mines 
utilizing belt air in the working section,'' recommends that a more 
structured procedure be instituted to help mine inspectors complete 
their inspection duties with greater ease and efficiency. MSHA will 
accomplish this through inspector training. Recommendation 20, 
concerning ``Research,'' recommends research utilizing ventilation 
modeling, engineering design and risk analysis be performed to 
investigate: Improved escapeway design, reduced air leakage, and 
booster fans. MSHA will accomplish this through the Agency's technical 
support program area, working in collaboration with the National 
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).
    This preamble, like that of the proposal, is organized in two 
parts. Part III(A) includes requirements for improved flame-resistant 
conveyor belts. Part III(B) includes requirements for fire prevention 
and detection and approval of the use of air from the belt entry to 
ventilate working sections.

III. Section-by-Section Analysis

A. Flame-Resistant Conveyor Belt

1. General
    In the 1980s, MSHA and the former Bureau of Mines (Bureau) of the 
Department of the Interior developed a flame-resistance test for 
conveyor belts that would result in a higher level of flame resistance 
than the existing 30 CFR Part 18 test. The Bureau and MSHA constructed 
a large-scale test facility at the Lake Lynn Laboratory. 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 Evaluation Laboratory Test (BELT), a laboratory-scale flame 
resistance test. In order for a belt to pass the BELT method, it must 
have improved fire-resistant capability, which greatly limits flame 
propagation. The BELT method is easy to perform, objective, correlates 
well with large-scale tests, and is economically and technologically 
feasible. MSHA and the Bureau performed extensive testing of the BELT 
method. Test results over a 34-month period, based on samples of 
conveyor belts, reveal that the BELT method is highly precise and 
accurate.
    On December 24, 1992, MSHA published a proposal to revise the 
existing regulation for testing and acceptance of conveyor belts (53 FR 
61524). That proposal would have replaced existing Sec.  18.65 
concerning flame-testing of conveyor belts. Under the 1992 proposal, 
underground conveyor belts would have been required to meet the more 
protective BELT method for MSHA approval under proposed Part 14.
    However, the Agency withdrew the proposal (67 FR 46431) on July 15, 
2002, due to the decreased frequency of conveyor belt fires. As 
mentioned earlier, in accordance with Section 11 of the 2006 MINER Act 
and the recommendation of the Panel, MSHA issued a proposal on June 19, 
2008 on 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.
    The final rule addresses Panel Recommendation No. 1--Conveyor Belt 
Flammability Testing and Approval, and Recommendation No. 3--Improved 
Fire Resistance Standards for All Underground Coal Mines. Consistent 
with the Panel's recommendations, this final rule establishes a new 
Part 14 that includes the BELT method for the approval of improved 
flame-resistant conveyer belts. In addition, the final rule requires 
that improved flame-resistant conveyor belts be used in all underground 
coal mines. It makes technical and conforming changes to existing Parts 
6 and 18.
2. Discussion of the Final Rule
    Final Sec.  14.1, changed from the proposal, establishes the 
purpose of the final rule and effective date for approval holders. 
Final Part 14 establishes the flame resistance requirements for MSHA 
approval of conveyor belts for use in underground coal mines. 
Applications for approval or extensions of approval submitted after 
December 31, 2008 must meet the requirements of final Part 14.
    During the rulemaking process and at each of the public hearings, 
MSHA solicited comments on the impact of the proposed one-year period 
provided manufacturers and operators to transition to the new belt, on 
existing inventories, and associated costs to approval holders. A 
commenter stated that the transition period was adequate and that they 
would not have any difficulty meeting it as long as the approval 
process was quick. Another commenter stated that the timetable 
established by the Agency may be too aggressive to assure that all the 
laboratory testing and approvals are timely completed so that belt 
manufacturing and delivery of the new belt products are timely. Based 
on Agency experience, MSHA's timely processing of applications will be 
dependent upon the completeness of applications submitted to the 
Agency. To assure that the new belt will be

[[Page 80582]]

available in a timely manner, the final rule requires that all 
applications for approval or extensions of approval submitted after 
December 31, 2008 meet the requirements of the final rule. MSHA intends 
to process all applications that fully comply with the requirements in 
the final rule on a timely basis.
    Final Sec.  14.2 establishes the following definitions: 
``Applicant'', like the proposal, is derived from existing Sec. Sec.  
6.2 and 7.2, and refers to an individual or organization that 
manufactures or controls the production of a conveyor belt and who 
applies to MSHA for approval. MSHA received no comments on the 
proposal.
    ``Approval'', like the proposal, is derived from existing Sec.  
7.2, and replaces the term ``acceptance'' under existing Sec.  18.2. An 
approval, issued by MSHA, shows that a conveyor belt has met the 
requirements of this Part, and authorizes 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. MSHA 
received no comments on the proposal.
    ``Extension of approval'', like the proposal, is derived from 
existing Sec.  7.2, and is 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 authorizes the continued use of the approval marking after the 
appropriate extension number has been added. MSHA received no comments 
on the proposal.
    ``Flame-retardant ingredient'', like the proposal, means material 
that inhibits ignition or flame propagation. MSHA received no comments 
on the proposal.
    ``Flammable ingredient'', like the proposal, means material that is 
capable of combustion. MSHA received no comments on the proposal.
    ``Inert ingredient'', like the proposal, means a material that does 
not contribute to combustion. MSHA received no comments on the 
proposal.
    ``Post-approval product audit'', like the proposal, is derived from 
existing Sec.  7.2, and is defined as 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. MSHA received no comments on the proposal.
    ``Similar conveyor belt'', like the proposal, is defined as a 
conveyor belt that shares the same cover compound, general carcass 
construction, and fabric type as another approved conveyor belt. MSHA 
received no comments on the proposal.
    Final Sec.  14.3, derived from existing Sec.  18.9(a), provides 
that 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. In response to comments, the final rule is 
changed from the proposal to allow the Agency to consider requests 
received from others to observe tests.
    Commenters requested that miners (or representatives of the miners) 
be allowed to observe and evaluate the testing of belts. In response to 
this comment, the final rule would allow the Agency to consider 
requests received from others to observe tests. It is important to note 
that such requests would only apply to tests, not evaluations. MSHA's 
evaluations involve a paper review of the application and thus would 
not be appropriate for observation. MSHA believes that observation of 
tests may be appropriate if it does not involve the release of 
proprietary information, so long as it does not interfere with the 
approval process, does not delay the approval, and does not create a 
conflict of interest. As stated during the rulemaking process, the 
Agency must protect any proprietary information submitted.
    With this revision, MSHA intends that the approval process for 
flame-resistant conveyor belt be as transparent as possible, while 
safeguarding the confidentiality of all proprietary information 
submitted by applicants. The Agency made a minor non-substantive 
change, which clarifies that it is not necessary to state that MSHA be 
included in the parties allowed to observe testing and evaluation.
    Final Sec.  14.4, like the proposal, is derived from existing 
Sec. Sec.  7.3 and 18.6, and provides application procedures and 
requirements. The final rule covers two types of approval actions: 
Applications for approval and extensions of approval. When requesting 
the approval of a flame-resistant conveyor belt, final Sec.  14.4 
requires that the applicant submit information necessary to properly 
evaluate a conveyor belt. If, after receipt of an approval, the 
applicant requests approval of a similar conveyor belt or an extension 
of approval for the original conveyor belt, the applicant will not be 
required to submit documentation duplicative of previously submitted 
information. Only information related to changes in the previously 
approved conveyor belt will be required, avoiding unnecessary 
paperwork.
    Final Sec.  14.4(a), like the proposal, is based on existing 
Sec. Sec.  7.3(a) and 18.6(a). It specifies how and where an applicant 
files for MSHA approval or extension of approval. Paragraph (a) 
requires that applications for approvals or extensions of approval be 
sent to: U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health 
Administration, Chief, Approval and Certification Center, 765 
Technology Drive, 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. Since 
the proposal, the address of the Center has been changed (73 FR 52210); 
the final rule reflects this change. MSHA received no comments on the 
proposal.
    Final paragraph (b), like the proposal, requires that each 
application for approval contain information concerning the 
identification and construction of a conveyor belt, except any 
information submitted in a prior approval application need not be re-
submitted. An application must 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. Under the final rule, 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 will be tested.
    Final Sec.  14.4(b)(1), like the proposal, requires a technical 
description of the conveyor belt. This information must 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 (number of plies, solid 
woven); carcass fabric by textile type and weight (ounces per square 
yard); presence and type of breaker or floated ply; and the number, 
type, and size of cords and fabric for metal cord belts. MSHA received 
no comments on the proposal.
    Proposed Sec.  14.4(b)(3) has been renumbered as Sec.  14.4(b)(2). 
Like the proposal, it requires 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. MSHA 
received no comments on the proposal.

[[Page 80583]]

    Proposed Sec.  14.4(b)(2) has been renumbered as final Sec.  
14.4(c)(1). The final rule permits an applicant to request an approval 
of a similar belt or extension of approval without testing if the 
formulation of the belt is provided and MSHA determines testing is not 
necessary. The application must include formulation information on the 
compounds in the conveyor belt (for example, styrene-butadiene rubber 
(SBR), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), chloroprene, composite, or steel 
cable) by specifying either: (1) Each ingredient by its chemical name 
along with its percentage (weight) and tolerance or percentage range; 
or (2) each flame-retardant ingredient by its chemical or generic name 
with its percentage and tolerance or percentage range, or its minimum 
percent. The applicant must list each flammable and inert ingredient by 
chemical, generic or trade name, along with the total percentage of all 
flammable and inert ingredients. MSHA will evaluate this information 
and determine whether testing using the BELT method should occur or if 
the similar belt or extension of approval can be approved without 
testing.
    A commenter stated that the actual formulation data required to be 
submitted to MSHA is more extensive than the existing standard requires 
and includes competitively sensitive information. The commenter also 
stated that even though MSHA intends to protect the confidentiality of 
the information, there can be no guarantees. This commenter stated that 
MSHA should be prohibited from requiring compounding or formulation 
information to be submitted as part of the application for approval.
    Approving belts based upon an evaluation of the formulation and 
construction of the belt speeds the approval process and reduces cost 
to the applicant by eliminating testing fees. To approve a belt without 
testing, detailed formulation information on the composition and 
construction of the previously approved belt or belt family is 
necessary to assure that the flame-resistant properties would be 
maintained. This information may not be necessary if each belt 
construction is tested using the BELT method. To address this 
commenter's concern, the final rule allows the option of submitting 
detailed formulation and construction data for belts, or submitting 
samples for testing. Applicants who choose to submit samples for 
testing would be responsible for testing fees.
    When the formulation and construction information is collected, 
MSHA is required to maintain the proprietary nature of this conveyor 
belt information submitted under final Sec.  14.4 under the Freedom of 
Information Act (FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552). MSHA intends to continue its 
existing practice of treating information on product specifications and 
performance as proprietary information. The Agency will protect 
disclosure of this information to the fullest extent, consistent with 
the FOIA. Section 14.9 of the final rule provides that MSHA notify the 
applicant of requests for product information. MSHA will provide the 
manufacturer the opportunity to present its position on disclosure. In 
addition, information identified by the manufacturer as proprietary 
will not be disclosed.
    Proposed Sec.  14.4(b)(4) has been renumbered as final Sec.  
14.4(c)(2). It requires the identification of any similar conveyor belt 
for which the applicant already holds an approval. The final rule has 
been revised to require submission of the formulation specifications 
for the approved similar belt if it has not already been submitted to 
the Agency. This would be the same information as specified in Sec.  
14.4(c)(1).
    Final Sec.  14.4(c)(2)(i) requires the applicant to submit, as part 
of the application, the MSHA assigned approval number of the belt that 
most closely resembles the one being evaluated. Final Sec.  
14.4(c)(2)(ii) requires an explanation of any changes from the existing 
approval. 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.
    A commenter stated that this proposal is confusing. This commenter 
further stated that MSHA should take the safe approach and test all 
belt products, regardless of the number of plies. Under existing Part 
18, MSHA's testing program for accepting belts over the last 30 years 
includes the evaluation of similar belts. Under the existing program, 
each belt that is submitted to MSHA is thoroughly evaluated according 
to existing application procedures to determine if additional testing 
is necessary or if an extension is justified. The use of the BELT 
method will greatly increase safety to miners by the approval of 
improved flame-resistant belt. Further, additional information required 
under the final rule will allow MSHA to provide a full evaluation of 
the belt application.
    Final Sec.  14.4(d), renumbered from proposed Sec.  14.4(c), 
requires that any change from the documentation on file at MSHA that 
affects the technical requirements of Part 14 must be submitted for 
approval prior to implementing the change. This requirement avoids 
changes being made that could affect the flame resistant properties of 
the conveyor belt. MSHA received no comments on the proposal.
    Final Sec.  14.4(d)(1), (2), and (3), like the proposal, include 
requirements for each application for an extension of approval. Final 
paragraph (d)(1) requires the MSHA-assigned approval number of the 
conveyor belt for which the extension is sought; final paragraph (d)(2) 
requires the description of the proposed change to the conveyor belt; 
and final paragraph (d)(3) requires the name, address, and telephone 
number of the applicant's representative responsible for answering any 
questions regarding the application. The applicant may also include the 
representative's e-mail address. MSHA received no comments on the 
proposal.
    Final Sec.  14.4(e), renumbered from proposed Sec.  14.4(d), 
provides that MSHA will determine if testing, additional information, 
samples, or material is needed to evaluate an application. Under the 
final rule, if an applicant believes that flame testing is not 
required, a statement explaining the rationale must be included in the 
application. MSHA received no comments on the proposal.
    Final Sec.  14.4(f), renumbered from proposed Sec.  14.4(e), 
permits an applicant to request an equivalency determination under 
existing Sec.  6.20 for a non-MSHA product safety standard. MSHA 
received no comments on the proposal.
    Final Sec.  14.4(g), renumbered from proposed Sec.  14.4(f), 
requires that fees calculated in accordance with Part 5, entitled: Fee 
for Testing, Evaluation, and Approval of Mining Products, must be 
submitted. MSHA received no comments on the proposal.
    Final Sec.  14.5, like the proposal, requires that upon request by 
MSHA, each applicant must submit three pre-cut, unrolled, flat samples 
of conveyor belt for flame testing. Under the final rule, each sample 
must be 60  \1/4\ inches (152.4  0.6 cm) long 
by 9  \1/8\ inches (22.9  0.3 cm) wide. The 
laboratory-scale test for flame resistance requires testing of three 
samples to determine acceptable performance. The final rule requires 
pre-cut and unrolled flat samples, which can be mounted for testing. 
Uncut and rolled samples require additional time to be cut and 
flattened for subsequent mounting in the test chamber. 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. Under existing 
Sec.  18.65(a), acceptance applicants are required to submit samples 
for testing.
    Curling of samples has presented a problem during testing. These

[[Page 80584]]

requirements, along with the 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. MSHA received no comments on the proposal.
    Final Sec.  14.6, like the proposal, addresses issuance of 
approval. Final Sec.  14.6(a) provides that MSHA will issue an approval 
or notice of the reasons for denying approval after completing the 
Agency's testing and evaluation. The notice of approval will be 
accompanied by relevant documentation and related material, covering 
the details of design and construction of the conveyor belt upon which 
the approval is based. MSHA received no comments on the proposal.
    Final Sec.  14.6(b), like the proposal, requires that an applicant 
not advertise or otherwise represent a conveyor belt as approved until 
MSHA has issued an approval. MSHA received no comments on the proposal.
    Final Sec.  14.7, like the proposal, includes requirements for 
approval marking and distribution records. Final Sec.  14.7(a), like 
the proposal, requires that an approved conveyor belt must be marketed 
only under the name listed in the approval. MSHA received no comments 
on the proposal.
    Final Sec.  14.7(b), like the proposal, is based on existing Sec.  
18.65(f). It requires approved conveyor belts to 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 
meters), and repeated at least once every foot (0.3 m or 30.5 
centimeters) across the width of the belt. MSHA requires 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 permits identification of the conveyor 
belt for a longer time. This method also enables better identification 
of conveyor belts cut from larger to smaller widths, or where worn 
edges are trimmed. MSHA received no comments on the proposal.
    Final Sec.  14.7(c), like the proposal, provides that where the 
construction of a conveyor belt does not permit marking as prescribed 
under the final rule, other permanent marking may be accepted by MSHA. 
This provision allows alternatives for marking conveyor belts. MSHA 
received no comments on the proposal.
    Final Sec.  14.7(d), like the proposal, requires that the applicant 
maintain records of the initial sale of each belt having an approval 
marking. Under the final rule, the record must be retained for at least 
5 years following the initial sale. Information on initial sales should 
include the sale date, the customer name and address, and the belt 
identification by slab, batch or lot. A five-year retention period 
conforms to MSHA's audit cycle.
    During the rulemaking process and at each of the public hearings, 
MSHA requested comments on the 5-year retention period for sales 
records. Commenters suggested that sales records be kept as long as the 
belt is in use, whether it be at the operation it was originally 
purchased for or other locations. In addition, a commenter stated that 
in order to keep the record straight, MSHA should require that all 
sales records follow the belt from the time of purchase to its end-of-
service life. Based on MSHA's experience and data, a five-year 
retention period is adequate to discover any potential hazardous 
defects, such as through MSHA's post-approval audit process.
    Final Sec.  14.8 includes requirements for quality assurance. MSHA 
received no comments on the proposal.
    Final Sec.  14.8(a), like the proposal, requires approval holders 
to 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 assures 
that the finished conveyor belt slab will meet the flame-resistance 
test. MSHA received no comments on the proposal.
    Final Sec.  14.8(b), like the proposal, requires that the 
instruments used for quality assurance under paragraph (a) be 
calibrated according to the instrument manufacturer's specifications. 
Under this final rule, 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 final rule also requires 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. MSHA received no comments on the proposal.
    Final Sec.  14.8(c), like the proposal, requires control of 
production in accordance with the approval. If a third party is 
assembling or manufacturing all or part of the approved belt, the final 
rule requires that the approval holder assure that the product is 
manufactured as approved. MSHA received no comments on the proposal.
    Final Sec.  14.8(d), like the proposal, requires 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. It also requires that the 
notification 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. Under the final 
rule, notification could be by telephone, e-mail, facsimile, or other 
similar means. In addition, corrective action may include recalling the 
conveyor belt or restricting its use pending resolution of the defect. 
MSHA received no comments on the proposal.
    Final Sec.  14.9 is derived from existing Sec.  18.9. It addresses 
the disclosure of information. Final Sec.  14.9(a), like the proposal, 
provides that all proprietary information concerning product 
specifications and performance submitted to MSHA by the applicant will 
be protected from disclosure. MSHA received no comments on the 
proposal.
    Final Sec.  14.9(b), like the proposal, provides that MSHA will 
notify applicants or approval holders of requests for disclosure of 
information concerning their conveyor belts, and provide them an 
opportunity to present their position prior to any decision on 
disclosure. MSHA received no comments on the proposal.
    Under the final rule, MSHA will treat information on product 
material, specifications, and processes as protected under exemption 4 
of 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 
will notify the applicant of any FOIA request seeking information 
submitted by the applicant under the final rule. The applicant then 
will 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 will consider the applicant's objections in deciding 
whether to disclose the information. If MSHA determines that the FOIA

[[Page 80585]]

requires disclosure over the applicant's objections, MSHA will notify 
the applicant of the documents to be disclosed prior to the disclosure 
date (unless MSHA learns that the material already has lawfully been 
made public) [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.
    Final Sec.  14.10 provides for post-approval product audits. Final 
Sec.  14.10(a), like the proposal, provides that approved conveyor 
belts are subject to periodic audits by MSHA to determine conformity 
with the technical requirements upon which the approval was based. 
Under the final rule, MSHA will select representative conveyor belts to 
be audited and, upon request, the approval holder may obtain any final 
audit report.
    One commenter asked if the audit procedures would be applied 
equally to domestic and foreign manufacturers who are approval holders. 
As MSHA stated during the public hearings, all approval holders will be 
held to the same approval and audit procedures, regardless of location.
    Other commenters stated that the proposal would only allow the 
approval holder to receive the final post-approval product audit report 
upon request to MSHA. They stated that the distribution of similar 
reports involving respirators are published and distributed by NIOSH to 
the mining industry, and believed audit reports should be distributed, 
or at least made available, to the entire industry. Commenters added 
that they would also like to have these reports provided to the 
representative of miners and the operator be required to post a copy on 
the mine bulletin board. MSHA conducts post-approval product audits 
under other existing regulations, such as Sec.  7.8(a), and consistent 
with both the proposal and the final rule, provides copies to the 
approval holders upon their request. The Agency has not experienced any 
problems or issues with the existing regulations, and the final rule is 
the same as the proposal. In the event there is a discrepancy between 
the manufactured product and the technical requirements upon which the 
approval is based, the approval holder would have to rectify the 
discrepancy and meet the requirements in this final rule.
    Final Sec.  14.10(b), like the proposal, requires that no more than 
once a year, except for cause, the approval holder, at MSHA's request, 
make 3 samples of an approved conveyor belt of the size specified in 
Sec.  14.5 available to MSHA for an audit at no cost to MSHA. The final 
rule also allows representatives of the applicant and other persons 
agreed upon by MSHA and the applicant to be present during audit tests 
and evaluations; however, if MSHA receives a request from others to 
observe tests, the Agency will consider it.
    Commenters stated that the representative of miners should be given 
an opportunity to be present during any testing or audit conducted by 
the Agency. The Agency agrees with the comments that requests to 
observe tests should be considered under the same conditions as 
explained in final Sec.  14.3, which is designed to protect proprietary 
rights of approval holders and not delay the audit process.
    Final Sec.  14.10(c), like the proposal, provides that conveyor 
belts will be subject to audit for cause at any time MSHA believes the 
product is not in compliance with the technical requirements of the 
approval. Audits allow MSHA to determine whether products are being 
manufactured as approved. MSHA will select the product and may 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. MSHA may also consider 
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 this final rule. These 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. Some commenters supported these 
audit procedures but insisted that a prompt notice of the findings of 
such audits be made available to all interested parties, including the 
miners' representatives. In the event that an audit finds a discrepancy 
between the manufactured product and the technical requirements upon 
which the approval is based, requirements contained in Sec.  14.11 will 
be followed.
    Final Sec.  14.11, like the proposal, includes requirements for 
revocation. Final Sec.  14.11(a)(1) and (2), like the proposal, 
provides that MSHA may revoke for cause an approval issued under the 
final rule if the conveyor belt (1) fails to meet the technical 
requirements of the approval, or (2) creates a danger or hazard when 
used in an underground coal mine. MSHA received no comments on the 
proposal.
    Final Sec.  14.11(b), like the proposal, provides that prior to 
revoking an approval, the approval holder will be informed in writing 
of MSHA's intention to revoke. Under the final rule, 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.
    Commenters suggested that if MSHA issues a revocation notice, other 
means besides the internet be used, since not all mine operations and 
miners have access to the internet. MSHA's existing practice is to 
notify the mining community of equipment and safety alerts by various 
means, including the internet, the Agency's district offices and 
inspectors, and occasionally, via mail.
    Final Sec.  14.11(c), like the proposal, provides that upon 
request, the approval holder will be given the opportunity for a 
hearing. 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, final Sec.  14.11(b) provides that approval holders 
be given 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. Commenters suggested that if a hearing is held, miners and 
their representatives should be able to participate. The administrative 
procedures for revocation hearings, including participation, will be 
determined on a case-by-case basis consistent with requirements 
contained in the APA.
    Final Sec.  14.11(d), which is changed from the proposal, requires 
that if a conveyor belt poses an imminent danger to the safety or 
health of miners, an approval may be immediately suspended without 
written notice of the Agency's intention to revoke.

[[Page 80586]]

    Commenters suggested that MSHA reconsider the proposal since the 
immediate suspension of conveyor belt approval necessitating removal of 
conveyor belt could pose serious operational difficulty for mine 
operators and their employees. They suggested that MSHA develop an 
expedited procedure to validate any concerns identified and to 
establish a manageable approach to expeditiously remedy such concerns. 
The commenters stated that district managers should have the authority 
to approve alternative approaches to ``immediate removal.'' Such 
approaches could establish agreed upon safety precautions permitting 
miners to remain at work during a conveyor belt removal/replacement 
cycle.
    This final requirement would only be applicable in the event that 
MSHA discovers during an audit that a conveyor belt poses an imminent 
danger to miners. However, MSHA believes that it is unlikely that an 
audit would result in a massive recall of conveyor belt. Under the 
final rule, MSHA intends that the severity of the hazard identified in 
the audit would dictate the corrective action required. MSHA believes 
that, should revocation of an approval become necessary, the Agency 
will be able to develop procedures that will allow any identified 
defect to be remedied while maintaining safety and health protection 
for miners.
    Consistent with the Agency's existing practice, revocation of an 
approval, as the commenter suggests, is a very serious action, taken 
only to correct a condition likely to cause death or serious physical 
harm. MSHA's existing regulations in Parts 7 and 15 provide that the 
Agency may suspend an approval without written notice, if there is an 
imminent danger to miners, pending completion of revocation procedures. 
The final rule is changed to provide that in the case of an imminent 
danger to miners, the approval may be immediately suspended. This is 
consistent with MSHA's other approval regulations.
    MSHA believes that removal of belts that pose an imminent danger is 
necessary to protect miners from potential injury and life-threatening 
hazards. Once an approval is suspended, MSHA will notify the mining 
community of this action.
    Final Sec.  14.20, like the proposal, requires that conveyor belts 
for use in underground coal mines be flame resistant and tested under 
final Sec.  14.20 (a) or (b). Under final paragraph (a), testing must 
be in accordance with the flame test specified in final Sec.  14.22. 
Under final paragraph (b), testing must be in accordance with an 
alternate test determined by MSHA to be equivalent under existing Sec.  
6.20 and final Sec.  14.4(e). This testing would assure that conveyor 
belts meet the specifications in the final rule, are difficult to 
ignite, and are highly resistant to flame propagation. MSHA recognizes 
that other tests may exist or be developed in the future which could be 
appropriate for evaluating flame-resistant qualities of conveyor belt 
for use in underground coal mines. Under final paragraph (b), once a 
determination of equivalency is made, MSHA will publish a notice in the 
Federal Register. MSHA received no comments on the proposal.
    Final Sec.  14.21, like the proposal, describes the principal parts 
of the BELT apparatus used to test for flame resistance of conveyor 
belts. Final Sec.  14.21(a), like the proposal, requires a horizontal 
test chamber 66 inches (167.6 cm) long by 18 inches (45.7 cm) square 
(inside dimensions). The chamber dimensions were established from the 
large-scale belt flammability studies. The test chamber must be 
constructed from 1 inch (2.5 cm) thick Marinite I[supreg], or 
equivalent insulating material. Should minor cracking occur in the 
Marinite I[supreg], it can be repaired using an appropriate sealant. 
However, the Marinite I[supreg] or equivalent insulating material must 
be replaced and not repaired if the crack or break is across the total 
thickness. MSHA received no comments on the proposal.
    Final Sec.  14.21(b), like the proposal, requires 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 must 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 must be lined with ceramic blanket 
insulation to minimize high duct temperatures and thermal expansion. 
MSHA received no comments on the proposal.
    Final Sec.  14.21(c), like the proposal, requires a U-shaped gas-
fueled impinged jet burner igniting 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 must be spaced alternately along the U-shaped burner 
tube. The 2 rows of burner jets must be 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 93 percent 
methane.
    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, is the burner type used as the 
igniting source in the BELT. Any other burner unit which meets the 
specifications would be appropriate. The burner in the final rule 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 burner in the final rule and 
gaseous fuel in conjunction with the other parameters. MSHA received no 
comments on the proposal.
    Final Sec.  14.21(d), like the proposal, requires 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. Under final paragraph (d)(1), like the proposal, the 2 parallel 
rails, with 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. 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. Under final paragraph (d)(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.
    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 method for research or 
quality assurance purposes, some type of effluent control may be 
required to meet State and local

[[Page 80587]]

emission standards. MSHA received no comments on the proposal.
    Final Sec.  14.22, like the proposal, specifies the test for flame 
resistance of conveyor belts. The final rule addresses variables that 
have an appreciable effect on the test results in order to maintain 
consistency in the testing method. 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.
    Final Sec.  14.22(a), like the proposal, specifies the test 
procedure sequence. Technical dimensions and tolerances that are 
critical to the proper conduct of the test and to maintain consistency 
in the test method are specified in this final rule, while dimensions 
that have no effect on the test results are specified without a 
tolerance and are indicated as approximate. MSHA received no comments 
on the proposal.
    Final Sec.  14.22(a)(1), like the proposal, requires that three 
belt samples, 60  \1/4\ inches (152.4  0.6 cm) 
long by 9  \1/8\ inches (22.9  0.3 cm) wide, be 
laid flat at 70  10 [deg]F (21  5 [deg]C) for 
at least 24 hours prior to the test. It assures that the samples are at 
laboratory temperatures, facilitates sample mounting, and minimizes 
curling during the test. MSHA received no comments on the proposal.
    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.
    Final Sec.  14.22(a)(2), like the proposal, requires that for each 
of three tests, one belt sample be placed on the rails of the rack with 
the load carrying surface facing up 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. 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. Many PVC belts are constructed with 
a solid woven carcass and the top or bottom cover is not designated. If 
a belt is constructed without a designated top cover, either side of 
the belt could be mounted as the load carrying surface. MSHA received 
no comments on the proposal.
    Final Sec.  14.22(a)(3), like the proposal, requires the sample to 
be fastened to the rails of the rack with steel washers and cotter 
pins. The final rule provides the following requirements. The cotter 
pin must extend at least \3/4\ inch (1.9 cm) below the rails. 
Equivalent fasteners may be used. A series of 5 holes approximately \9/
32\ inch (0.7 cm) in diameter must be made 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. The next hole must be made 5  
\1/4\ inches (12.7  0.6 cm) from the first, the third hole 
must be made 5  \1/4\ inches (12.7  0.6 cm) 
from the second, the fourth hole must be made approximately midway 
along the length of the sample, and the fifth hole must be made near 
the end of the sample. A washer must be placed over each sample hole, 
and a cotter pin must be inserted through the hole and spread apart to 
secure the sample to the rail. MSHA received no comments on the 
proposal.
    Under the final rule, 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.
    Final Sec.  14.22(a)(4), like the proposal, requires centering 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. 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. MSHA 
received no comments on the proposal.
    Final Sec.  14.22(a)(5), like the proposal, requires measuring the 
airflow with a 4-inch (10.2 cm) diameter vane anemometer, or equivalent 
device, placed on the centerline of the belt sample 12  \1/
2\ inches (30.5  1.27 cm) from the entrance of the chamber. 
Airflow passing through the chamber must be adjusted to 200  20 ft/min (61  6 m/min). MSHA received no comments 
on the proposal.
    The airflow and measuring location 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.
    Final Sec.  14.22(a)(6), like the proposal, requires that, before 
starting the test on 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  1.27, 
76.2  1.27, and 152.4  1.27 cm) from the front 
entrance must not exceed 95[deg] Fahrenheit (35[deg] Centigrade) at any 
of these points with the specified airflow passing through the chamber. 
In addition, 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).
    Under the final rule, the \1/2\ inch (1.27 cm) tolerance is needed 
for the temperature measurement points to maintain consistency of the 
test conditions. These temperature limits are specified to maintain the 
repeatability of the test results and to maintain the comparability 
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. MSHA received no 
comments on the proposal.
    Final Sec.  14.22(a)(7), like the proposal, requires centering 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. The burner must be 
centered in front of the sample's leading edge, so that when ignited 
the

[[Page 80588]]

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 method, 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. MSHA received no 
comments on the proposal.
    Final Sec.  14.22(a)(8), like the proposal, requires that, with the 
burner lowered away from the sample, the gas flow to the burner must be 
set at 1.2  0.1 standard cubic feet per minute (SCFM) (34 
 2.8 liters per minute) and be maintained throughout the 5 
to 5.1 minute ignition period. One standard cubic foot is 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 kilopascals). 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. 
MSHA received no comments on the proposal.
    Final Sec.  14.22(a)(9), like the proposal, provides that 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 flame. MSHA received no comments on the proposal.
    Final Sec.  14.22(a)(10), like the proposal, provides that after 
the completion of each test, the undamaged portion across the entire 
width of the sample be determined. Determining the undamaged portion 
across the entire width of the sample is necessary for specifying 
acceptable performance of the conveyor belt. Blistering without 
charring does not constitute damage because blistering could result 
from heat exposure rather than the presence of flame. MSHA received no 
comments on the proposal.
    Final Sec.  14.22(b), like the proposal, requires that each tested 
sample must exhibit an undamaged portion across its entire width. This 
requirement is based on the correlation of the BELT results to the 
results of large-scale belt flammability studies. MSHA received no 
comments on the proposal.
    Final Sec.  14.22(c), like the proposal, provides that MSHA may 
modify the procedures of the flammability test for belts constructed of 
thicknesses more than 3/4 inch (1.9 cm). No comments were received on 
this provision.
    Final Sec.  14.23, like the proposal, provides that MSHA may 
approve a conveyor belt that incorporates technology for which the 
requirements of this final rule are not applicable if the Agency 
determines that the conveyor belt is as safe as those which meet the 
requirements of the final rule. This final rule is intended to 
facilitate the introduction of new technology or new applications of 
existing technology with respect to conveyor belts. MSHA received no 
comments on the proposal.

Part 75--Mandatory Safety Standards--Underground Coal Mines Subpart L--
Fire Protection

    Final Sec.  75.1108 requires the use of improved flame-resistant 
conveyor belt, as approved under Part 14, in underground coal mines. 
This requirement is consistent with Panel Recommendation 3.
    Final Sec.  75.1108(a) is changed from the proposal and allows mine 
operators until December 31, 2009 to place in service in underground 
coal mines conveyor belts approved under Part 14 or accepted under 
existing Part 18.
    Final Sec.  75.1108(b) is changed from the proposal and requires 
that effective December 31, 2009, conveyor belts placed in service must 
be approved under Part 14. In the event that MSHA determines that Part 
14 approved belt is not available, the Agency will consider an 
extension of the one-year transition period. Notice of an extension 
would be published in the Federal Register.
    Final Sec.  75.1108(c) is added in the final rule in response to 
comments and to clarify the Agency's intent with respect to the use of 
existing conveyor belt. It requires that effective December 31, 2018, 
all conveyor belts used in underground coal mines must be approved 
under Part 14.
    Commenters were opposed to permitting the purchase of either Part 
18 or Part 14 belt for a period of one year because mine operators 
could stockpile Part 18 belt, and use that belt underground for an 
extended period of time. They stated that Part 14 belt should be 
required to be purchased and installed in the mine upon the effective 
date of the final rule. These commenters stated that mine operators 
should only be permitted to use Part 18 belts already in service or in 
their inventory.
    In response to comments, MSHA included a new paragraph in the final 
rule that clarifies the Agency's intent with respect to the use of 
existing belt. Under the final rule, operators will have up to ten 
years to use existing belt, which has been placed into service by 
December 31, 2009. This assures that all belt used in underground coal 
mines will meet the requirements of Part 14 within ten years.
    The final rule language also has been changed from the proposal to 
include the phrase, ``placed in service'' instead of ``purchased for 
use.'' The Agency intends that ``placed in service'' clarifies that all 
new conveyor belts installed one year after the publication date of 
this final rule will comply with Part 14 requirements.
    A commenter stated that mine operators should be permitted to 
continue to remove belts, trim them down, and re-install the belt in 
their underground mines. Under the final rule, mine operators may 
continue these practices if the belts have been placed in service in 
their mines prior to or during the one-year transition period, that is, 
the one-year period when either Part 18 or Part 14 belt may be 
purchased. Belts that have been placed in service prior to or during 
the one-year transition period can be used until December 31, 2018. 
This belt may not be marketed for use in other underground coal mining 
operations after December 31, 2009, but may be used by the same mine 
operator.
    Existing Sec.  75.1108-1 is removed because it is no longer needed.
3. Conforming Amendments
    This final rule requires conforming amendments to existing approval 
regulations in Parts 6 and 18.

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

    Section 6.2 concerning the definition of ``Equivalent non-MSHA 
product safety standards,'' and Sec.  6.20(a)(1) concerning 
applications for equivalency, are both amended by adding Part 14 
(Conveyor Belts in Underground Coal Mines). These are administrative 
and conforming provisions.

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

    Part 18 is amended by removing the term ``conveyor belt'' from 
existing

[[Page 80589]]

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 making 
these conforming amendments to Part 18 because applications for 
approval of conveyor belts will be considered only under Part 14.

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

1. General
    This final rule enhances miner safety and health by including 
improved requirements for the use of air from the belt entry, belt 
entry and conveyor maintenance, and fire prevention and detection. This 
final rule includes requirements on: Approval of using air from the 
belt entry to ventilate working sections; replacement of point-type 
heat sensors with carbon monoxide sensors in all coal mines; training 
of 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.
    Consistent with the Panel's recommendations this final rule, like 
the proposal, includes requirements applicable to mines that use air 
from the belt entry to ventilate a working section, and requirements 
applicable to all underground coal mines. The requirements applicable 
to all underground coal mines include: Airlocks along escapeways; 
minimum belt entry air velocity; standardized tactile signals for 
lifelines; maintaining higher ventilating pressures in the primary 
escapeway; replacing point-type heat sensors with carbon monoxide 
sensors for fire detection in belt entries; and belt entry maintenance.
    In addition, this final rule, like the proposal, revises existing 
requirements related to the use of carbon monoxide sensors for fire 
detection along belt lines in all mines. 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.
    This section of the final rule addresses the following Panel 
recommendations:
     Recommendation 5--Belt entry and conveyor belt 
maintenance;
     Recommendation 6--Special requirements for the use of belt 
air;
     Recommendation 7--Belt air approval recommendation;
     Recommendation 8--Discontinuing point-type heat sensors;
     Recommendation 9--Smoke sensors;
     Recommendation 10--Use of diesel-discriminating sensors;
     Recommendation 12--AMS operator training certification;
     Recommendation 13--Minimum and maximum air velocities;
     Recommendation 14--Escapeways and leakage;
     Recommendation 15--Lifelines;
     Recommendation 16--Point-feeding; and
     Recommendation 17--Respirable dust.
2. Discussion of the Final 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

    Final Sec.  48.27(a), like the proposal, revises the existing rule 
to require that miners assigned to new work tasks as AMS operators be 
trained before they perform these duties. This requirement is 
consistent with Panel recommendation 12, that MSHA require the 
qualification and certification of AMS operators. This requirement 
applies to AMS operators that are monitoring methane or carbon monoxide 
sensors used to meet the requirements of: Sec. Sec.  75.323(d)(1)(ii)--
Actions for excessive methane; 75.340(a)(1)(ii) and 75.340(a)(2)(ii)--
Electrical installations; 75.350(b) and 75.350(d)--Use of air from a 
belt entry to ventilate working sections; or 75.362--On-shift 
examinations. MSHA believes that AMS operators must have the 
background, experience, and training 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.  48.23 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 has added AMS operators to the 
list of tasks covered by this provision.
    A commenter stated that AMS operators should participate in a 
simulated mine emergency as part of the initial training. While mine 
operators may elect to include a simulated mine emergency in the 
initial task training for AMS operators, the final rule does not 
require simulated mine emergency training. The responsible person 
designated under existing Sec.  75.1501 is required to take charge 
during a mine emergency. That person must be trained annually in a 
course of instruction in mine emergency response.
    Another commenter stated that this task training duplicates the 
annual training already required for AMS operators and qualified 
persons. Under the final rule, the initial task training and annual 
retraining are separate requirements. The initial task training is 
designed to assure that the AMS operator has the necessary skills to 
operate the AMS prior to assuming responsibility for that task. The 
annual retraining in Sec.  75.351(q) is designed to reinforce existing 
skills and to assure that the AMS operator remains capable of doing the 
task, with an understanding of current mining operations.

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

Subpart B--Qualified and Certified Persons

Section 75.156--AMS Operator, Qualifications

    Final Sec.  75.156(a), like the proposal, is new and requires that 
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. This requirement is consistent with Panel 
recommendation 12, that MSHA require the qualification and 
certification of AMS operators.
    MSHA recognizes that a significant portion of the knowledge 
necessary for an AMS operator is mine-specific and must be tailored to 
conditions at each mine. This task training must be provided at each 
mine where the AMS operator performs 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 has developed a training guide to assist mine 
operators in identifying essential elements to be included in the 
training plan.
    A commenter stated that this training should not be included with 
the Part 48 annual retraining. This commenter was concerned about 
diluting the Part 48 training and wanted the AMS operator training to 
be separate.
    A commenter asked if MSHA would develop an initial training program 
for AMS operators. A commenter also stated that a copy of the initial 
training plan should be furnished to miners or a representative of 
miners two weeks

[[Page 80590]]

before its submission to the district manager.
    The new initial task training for AMS operators does not impact 
other existing training requirements in Part 48. MSHA has developed a 
model training program that mine operators can tailor to fit specific 
mining conditions and equipment at their mines. Consistent with 
existing Sec.  48.23(d), mine operators must furnish a copy of the 
training plan to a miner's representative two weeks prior to its 
submission to the district manager.
    Final Sec.  75.156(b), like the proposal, requires 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 operator's 
qualifications during regular inspections. In making this 
determination, the inspector will ask the AMS operator questions 
regarding: The responses to AMS signals; notification requirements; 
approved mine plans; recordkeeping requirements; and AMS operating 
requirements. This assures that the AMS operator fully understands how 
to operate and respond to the AMS.

Subpart D--Ventilation

Actions for Excessive Methane

    During the rulemaking process and at each of the public hearings, 
MSHA solicited comments on whether the Agency should establish a new 
provision to require that changes or adjustments be made to reduce the 
concentration of methane when a range between 0.5 and 1.0 percent 
methane is present in the belt entry as measured 200 feet outby the 
section loading point. In addition, MSHA specifically requested 
comments on the level at which changes or adjustments should be made. 
MSHA received no comments regarding a specific level at which changes 
or adjustments should be made.
    The Agency's request for comments was based on Panel Recommendation 
18, which stated that the district manager should regularly evaluate 
any working section that has methane readings at or above 0.5% methane, 
measured 200 feet outby the tailpiece of the belt. This recommendation 
applied only to mines that use air from the belt entry to ventilate 
working sections.
    A commenter agreed with the Panel's recommendation and supported a 
new standard to require that corrective actions be made when methane 
levels range between 0.5 and 1.0 percent, measured 200 feet outby the 
section loading point. This commenter did not recommend a specific 
level, but did state that methane levels should be reduced to the 
lowest possible level.
    Several commenters were opposed to a new standard stating that 
existing standards, combined with methane limits and tests already in 
place for the working section, provide adequate protection. Commenters 
also stated that any attempt to reduce methane concentrations in the 
belt entry below 1.0 percent could create undesired pressure 
differentials from the belt entry to the intake air course. MSHA agrees 
that this may be true for blowing ventilation systems, but not for 
exhausting ventilation systems.
    Further, according to commenters, adjustments to reduce the methane 
concentration in the belt entry to a range below 0.5 to 1.0 percent may 
not be possible because intake methane levels up to 1.0 percent are 
permitted. MSHA notes that existing standards require that when 1.0 
percent or more methane is present in the belt entry, changes or 
adjustments must be made to reduce the concentration to less than 1.0 
percent.
    Consistent with the Panel's recommendation, MSHA is not including a 
new standard in the final rule, but intends to change the Agency's 
inspection procedures to require that inspectors measure methane in the 
belt entry at a point 200 feet outby the section tail piece. This will 
allow the Agency to determine the effect of the use of air from the 
belt entry on methane levels in the working section.
    The Agency recognizes that moving air from the intake to the belt 
may reduce the methane concentration 200 feet outby the section loading 
point, but may not result in reduced methane concentrations on the 
working section because the total air quantity delivered to the section 
will not be increased.

Section 75.333(c)(4)--Ventilation Controls

    Final Sec.  75.333(c)(4), like the proposal, is a new provision 
requiring 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.
    The final rule is responsive to Panel Recommendation 14 that 
personnel doors along escapeways should be installed to establish an 
airlock when the static force created by the pressure differential 
exceeds 125 pounds. 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 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 need for safe access is critical during a mine emergency evacuation 
when miners must move between adjacent air courses.
    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.
    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 
1,728 square inches (3' x 4' = 12 square feet x 144 in\2\ /ft\2\ = 
1,728 square inches). For a force of 125 pounds, the distribution is 
0.0725 pounds per square inch (125 lb / 1,728 in\2\ = 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).
    A commenter supported the proposal to require airlocks, but 
suggested spacing the airlocks at intervals not to exceed 1,000 feet 
for the entire length of the escapeway from the section to the surface. 
Consistent with the Panel recommendation, MSHA believes that airlocks 
should only be required when the force on a personnel door between air 
courses along escapeways could result in injury to miners when opening 
or closing the door. If the force is less than 125 pounds, miners 
should not experience difficulty opening or closing the door. Requiring 
airlocks on doors with lower pressures would unnecessarily delay miners 
in moving between escapeways.
    Some commenters suggested the proposal be modified to allow the use 
of alternative measures such as flaps and sliders to comply with the 
proposed requirement for airlocks. Another suggested that airlocks only 
be required when alternatives such as hinged or sliding doors or flaps 
do not reduce the force on the door to less than 125 pounds. In the 
preamble to the proposal, MSHA stated mine operators may have

[[Page 80591]]

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. Under the final rule, the Agency 
will allow alternatives to reduce the force on a door. Airlocks are 
only required when the force exceeds 125 pounds. Mine operators have 
the option to use alternatives to reduce the force on a door.
    A commenter suggested that the final rule should state that 
airlocks only be required between adjacent escapeways when the force on 
the door exceeds 125 pounds. However, such a change would not be 
consistent with the Panel's recommendation. In the final rule, MSHA 
intends that airlocks be established where the air pressure 
differential between air courses along escapeways creates a static 
force exceeding 125 pounds on closed personnel doors.
    During the rulemaking process and at the public hearings, the 
Agency solicited comments on other suitable pressures. No comments were 
provided. MSHA also solicited comments on the number of airlocks that 
would be required under the proposal and the associated cost. One 
commenter provided data from 14 mines, which identify the number of 
airlocks required in each mine based upon the proposed rule. MSHA has 
considered this comment in the regulatory economic analysis.

Section 75.350--Belt Air Course Ventilation

    Final Sec.  75.350(a)(2), like the proposal, revises the existing 
standard. It requires that one year after the publication of the final 
rule, the air velocity in the belt entry must be at least 50 feet per 
minute. It also requires that air velocities be compatible with all 
fire detection systems and fire suppression systems used in the belt 
entry.
    MSHA has revised the existing standard because of changes to final 
Sec.  75.1103-4 (fire detection systems), which replaces point-type 
heat sensors for early-warning and detection of conveyor belt fires 
with carbon monoxide fire sensor systems in all belt entries. When 
point-type heat sensor 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.
    The final rule, like the proposal, allows mine operators to request 
lower velocities 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 more quickly reaches downwind sensors.
    Commenters questioned where and how MSHA would make air velocity 
measurements under the proposal. Consistent with existing inspection 
procedures, MSHA uses representative cross-sectional areas when 
determining air velocities. Large areas (such as belt channels, boom 
holes, and fall areas) and restricted areas (such as overcasts) are not 
representative and would not be used to determine air velocities.
    Another commenter supported the proposal but stated that the 
district manager should conduct an investigation, including a 
ventilation survey, prior to approving a lower velocity in the 
ventilation plan. Prior to approving changes in the ventilation plan, 
the district manager receives recommendations from inspectors, 
supervisors and specialists who are familiar with specific conditions 
in the mine. The district manager can also direct that further 
investigation or review be made at the mine which could include an 
underground ventilation survey. However, the Agency does not believe it 
is necessary to conduct an underground investigation in all cases and 
has not included such a requirement in the final rule.
    Final Sec.  75.350(b), like the proposal, revises the existing 
standard. It provides that the use of air from a belt air course to 
ventilate a working section be permitted only when evaluated and 
approved by the district manager in the ventilation plan. It requires 
the mine operator to provide justification in the plan that the use of 
air from the belt entry affords at least the same measure of protection 
as where belt haulage entries are not used to ventilate working places.
    This final rule 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 from 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.
    The final rule has been changed from the proposal to reduce to two 
months the time allowed for mine operators currently using air from the 
belt entry to submit a revised ventilation plan to the district 
manager. This change was made in response to commenters and to clarify 
MSHA's intent that mine operators submit their revised ventilation 
plans as soon as feasible after the final rule becomes effective. MSHA 
believes that the two-month period allows adequate time.
    The Agency will approve ventilation plans and revisions that assure 
that the use of air from the belt entry to ventilate working sections 
affords at least the same measure of protection as 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. The 
district manager will send a copy of this notification to the miners' 
representative. 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 the deadline for submitting the 
required information.
    If the operator does not respond by the deadline, or if issues can 
not be resolved, the district manager will send a second letter 
notifying the operator: (1) That the plan has not been approved; (2) of 
the deadline for submitting any required information; and (3) that 
after that deadline, if the operator does not submit the required 
information, the plan will be revoked. If the operator does not submit 
the required information in response to the second letter, the district 
manager will send a letter notifying the operator that the plan is 
revoked.
    Operating after the revocation date is a violation of the existing 
standard requiring an approved ventilation plan. A citation would be 
issued for failure to have an approved plan, as required by the 
existing ventilation standard.
    During the rulemaking process and at the public hearings, MSHA 
solicited comments on this proposal. The Agency was particularly 
interested in comments related to circumstances in which the district 
manager does not approve the continued use of air from the belt entry 
to ventilate working sections.
    A commenter stated that the use of air from the belt entry should 
not be

[[Page 80592]]

allowed. However, the commenter suggested that for consistency, the 
Assistant Secretary should review all plan revisions proposing the use 
of air from the belt entry. If the district manager makes the decision, 
the commenter recommended that MSHA develop criteria for plan approval 
that would hold mine operators to a higher standard. The commenter 
further stated that when the use of air from the belt entry is 
disapproved, its use should be discontinued immediately.
    Other commenters supported the use of air from the belt entry to 
reduce methane levels, and stated that mines currently using that air 
to ventilate working sections should be allowed to continue. Some of 
these commenters also indicated that if the district manager decides to 
disapprove the use of air from the belt entry, a reasonable transition 
period should be allowed for the mine operator to make the necessary 
ventilation changes.
    Mine ventilation plans are designed to reflect the specific 
conditions at each operation. The MSHA personnel most familiar with 
those mines--local mine inspectors, specialists and supervisors--
possess the technical expertise and are in the best position to make 
recommendations concerning plan approvals. Consistent with the Panel's 
recommendation, MSHA believes that the district manager is the 
appropriate senior official to make plan approval determinations 
including whether air from the belt entry should be used to ventilate 
working sections. To facilitate consistency with respect to Agency 
policy, MSHA will develop criteria for district managers to use when 
granting approval for the use of belt air.
    There are potential sources of fire in belt conveyor entries, and 
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. However, the Agency recognizes that there may be compelling 
reasons to use air from the belt entry as an intake air source for the 
section. These reasons may include the need for additional ventilation 
to dilute methane, or the need for fewer entries to reduce ground 
control hazards.
    The district manager may approve the use of air from the belt entry 
to ventilate the working section only in sections developed with three 
or more entries. Under existing standards, a petition for modification 
will be required for two-entry mine development to use air from the 
belt entry to ventilate the working section, and to operate the belt in 
the return air course. The final rule does not affect existing granted 
petitions for modification at two entry mines.
    In the preamble to the proposal, the Agency indicated that when the 
district manager makes a determination that the use of air from the 
belt entry would no longer be permitted in the mine ventilation plan, 
continued use of that air would be permitted until completion of 
current mining. MSHA recognizes that a transition period may be 
necessary, and that some mines can implement the change more readily 
than others. In response to commenters, the district manager, as part 
of the plan approval process, will make a determination on the duration 
of this transition period based on the specific conditions at each 
mine.
    Commenters also stated that the Agency should not allow the use of 
air from the belt entry to ventilate working sections until MSHA 
establishes standards, as part of the conveyor belt approval process, 
for smoke density and toxicity. The Agency recognizes that smoke 
density and toxicity can impact escape during a mine fire. To address 
these areas, MSHA issued a Request for Information to solicit input 
from the mining community and other interested parties (73 FR 35057). 
MSHA believes that the use of air from the belt entry to ventilate 
working sections can be made as safe as not using such air. As noted by 
the Panel, conditions such as high methane levels and deep ground cover 
can present serious safety concerns to miners. The use of air from the 
belt entry in these circumstances may result in a safer mine 
environment.
    In 2006, a fatal fire occurred at the Aracoma Alma Mine No. 1 in 
West Virginia. Public comments made during this rulemaking implied that 
deficiencies in the ventilation methods and safety measures in place at 
Aracoma at the time of the fire were approved by MSHA in the 
ventilation plan.
    However, the accident investigation revealed that the Aracoma mine 
was not ventilated as specified and required in the approved 
ventilation plan. In the accident report, MSHA identified 25 violations 
of safety standards as contributing to the accident. The Agency 
concluded that the two fatalities would have been prevented had the 
mine operator fully complied with MSHA standards.
    Final Sec.  75.350(b)(3), revises the existing standard. Paragraph 
(b)(3)(i), like the proposal, requires that 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\. 
Paragraph (b)(3)(ii), like the proposal, requires that where miners on 
the working section are on a reduced respirable coal mine dust standard 
that is below 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. Paragraph (b)(3)(iii), like the 
proposal, requires that 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.
    Final Sec.  75.350(b)(3) is consistent with Panel 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 standard of 1.0 mg/m\3\. 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 
time-weighted average of 1.0 mg/m\3\ 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 existing exposure limit for 
respirable coal mine dust is 2.0 mg/m\3\ 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/m\3\ (10/20 = 0.5 mg/m\3\). The purpose of a reduced standard is 
to limit miner exposure to respirable quartz.
    The final rule, like the 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/m\3\ and the reduced standard for the roof bolter on the same 
working section (a designated area) is 0.8 mg/m\3\, the average 
concentration of respirable dust in the belt entry used to ventilate 
that working section must not exceed 0.8 mg/m\3\. This is because 0.8 
mg/m\3\ is the lowest applicable respirable dust standard on the 
section.
    If a mine operator is unable to effectively reduce the respirable 
dust

[[Page 80593]]

levels in the belt entry to meet this requirement, the district manager 
will have the authority to revoke the ventilation plan which 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.
    During the rulemaking process and at each of the public hearings, 
the Agency solicited comments on the proposal. A commenter supported 
the proposal. Another commenter agreed with reducing dust 
concentrations, and stated that the dust concentration should be as low 
as feasible.
    Another commenter requested that MSHA not include this proposal in 
the final rule because there is no scientific justification for 
reducing the intake content of air that does not contain quartz in 
excess of five percent. The commenter stated that there is no 
connection between the designated area in the belt area and areas on 
the working section where there would be a reduced standard.
    Another commenter stated that the proposal was unnecessary because 
respirable dust samples must still be collected at the affected 
designated areas or designated occupations. This commenter stated that 
additional reduction of dust concentrations to less than 1.0 mg/m\3\ 
should not be required unless sample results from the designated area 
or occupations indicate non-compliance with the existing standard.
    The mine ventilation system must provide the necessary air quantity 
and velocity to dilute and disperse the airborne dust generated in the 
working section. This requires the intake air ventilating working 
sections to be sufficiently uncontaminated to maintain compliance with 
applicable dust standards. MSHA recognizes that permitting air from the 
belt entry to ventilate working sections increases the quantity of air 
at the working place. The Agency also recognizes that conveyor belt 
entries represent a constant and potentially significant dust 
generating source that can contribute to the respirable dust exposure 
of all miners on the working section. Consistent with the Panel's 
recommendation, the final rule is necessary to assure that air from the 
belt entry does not increase miners' exposure to respirable coal mine 
dust.
    Final Sec. Sec.  75.350(b)(7) and (b)(8), like the proposal, are 
new provisions. Final Sec.  75.350(b)(7) requires that the air velocity 
in the belt entry must be at least 100 feet per minute where this air 
is used to ventilate working sections. It provides that when requested 
by the mine operator, the district manager may approve lower velocities 
in the ventilation plan based on specific mine conditions. Final Sec.  
75.350(b)(8) requires that the air velocity in the belt entry must not 
exceed 1,000 feet per minute. It provides that when requested by the 
mine operator, the district manager may approve higher velocities in 
the ventilation plan based on specific mine conditions.
    These requirements address Panel 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.
    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 velocity will result in a greater 
entrainment of dust particles, resulting in a need to limit the 
velocity.
    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 those areas where entry 
height is exceptionally high.
    Consistent with the Panel's recommendation, the final rule provides 
that the district manager may approve exceptions to the minimum and 
maximum velocities in the mine ventilation plan based on specific mine 
conditions. These exceptions can be approved 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, 1991) to determine appropriate alert and alarm levels.
    A commenter supported the proposal but suggested that exceptions to 
the minimum and maximum velocities be approved at MSHA headquarters. 
For the reasons outlined above, MSHA believes that the district manager 
is in the most appropriate position to make a judgment on this issue.
    Another commenter objected to any limits on the velocity of air in 
the belt entry. That commenter stated that velocities greater than 
1,000 feet per minute may be necessary in gassy mines. However, the 
commenter did recognize that the proposal allowed the district manager 
to approve higher velocities in specific situations.
    Consistent with the Panel recommendation, MSHA believes 
establishing limits on velocity in the final rule, with the district 
manager being able to approve exceptions to the limits, is justified 
for mines using air from the belt entry to ventilate working sections.
    Final Sec.  75.350(d)(1), like the proposal, revises the existing 
standard. It requires that 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. It also 
requires that a second point must be monitored 1,000 feet upwind of the 
point-feed regulator, unless the mine operator requests a lesser 
distance to be approved by the district manager in the mine ventilation 
plan based on mine-specific conditions.
    The final rule addresses Panel Recommendation 16. The Panel 
recommended that mines using air from the belt entry to ventilate 
working sections install, where possible, a second carbon monoxide 
sensor in the primary escapeway 1,000 feet upwind of the sensor 
required by the existing standard. MSHA believes that this final rule 
will expedite escape in the case of a fire or other emergency, since a 
fire in the primary escapeway may be detected before contaminants 
inundate the alternate escapeway. This early-warning will provide the 
AMS operator and responsible person with additional time

[[Page 80594]]

to assess potential hazards and determine necessary corrective actions.
    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. The second sensor would monitor the 
primary escapeway for fire. Agency experience suggests this is possible 
in most cases since point-feed regulators are typically near the mouth 
of development panels or deep into the mains of the mine. However, the 
final rule allows operators to request that a lesser distance be 
approved by the district manager in the mine ventilation plan based on 
mine-specific conditions, for example, near intake shafts where the 
distance from the point-feed regulator to the bottom of the shaft may 
be less than 1,000 feet.
    A commenter suggested that similar protection should be required 
for locations where air is introduced from a shaft or slope into the 
belt air course (injection point). MSHA does not consider these 
locations to be point-feed regulators. This commenter's suggestion is 
beyond the scope of the Panel's recommendation and this rulemaking.
    Other commenters stated a sensor installed 1,000 feet out by a 
point-feed regulator did not provide additional protection and was not 
necessary. In its report, the Panel recommended installation of this 
sensor to provide earlier warning of a fire in the intake, and to 
eliminate possible false alarms. MSHA agrees that these sensors can 
provide early detection of a fire in the intake, and enhance miner 
safety.
    Proposed Sec.  75.350(d)(7) is not included in the final rule. The 
proposal would have required that where point-feeding air from a 
primary escapeway to a belt entry designated as an alternate escapeway, 
point-feed regulators be equipped with a means to remotely close the 
regulator. It would have also required that the AMS operator, after 
consultation with the responsible person and section foreman, be 
capable of performing this function from the designated surface 
location. The final rule does not include a requirement for providing a 
means for closing or re-opening the regulator from the designated 
surface location.
    The proposed rule addressed Panel Recommendation 16. The Panel 
recommended that, when carbon monoxide sensors detect alert or alarm 
levels of carbon monoxide and the mine has designated the belt entry 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.
    Several commenters indicated that closure of a point-feed regulator 
would be a major ventilation change. The commenters noted that the 
change can reduce the intake air quantity on a working section and 
create hazardous conditions. These commenters were opposed to requiring 
a means to remotely close or re-open point-feed regulators due to the 
possibility of inadvertent closure, which could create explosive 
atmospheres in working places. A commenter stated that these types of 
air changes should be performed only by trained mine rescue personnel 
with MSHA approval, and only after the mine was evacuated.
    MSHA agrees that closure of a regulator can reduce the intake air 
quantity on a working section, and may cause sudden and rapid increases 
in methane concentrations on the working sections. Closing regulators 
without properly notifying sections may lead to an ignition in the face 
area, fires and explosions.
    After a review of the comments, the Agency has determined, based on 
its experience with making ventilation changes during emergencies that 
the existing requirement that point-feed regulators be provided with a 
means to close the regulator from the intake and belt air courses 
within the mine is the most appropriate method for making this 
ventilation change during a mine emergency. This allows an on-site 
evaluation of the circumstances surrounding the emergency, and prevents 
an inadvertent or unauthorized closure from the surface.

Section 75.351(b)--Designated Surface Location and AMS Operator

    Final Sec.  75.351(b)(2), like the proposal, revises the existing 
standard. It requires that 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. In 
response to comments and to clarify the Agency's intent, the final rule 
is changed from the proposal to include a requirement that, in the 
event of an emergency, the sole responsibility of the AMS operator 
shall be to respond to the emergency.
    The final rule addresses Panel Recommendation 12. The Panel 
indicated that the highest priority of the AMS operator should be 
monitoring and responding to system signals. Under the final rule, the 
AMS operator is not prohibited from performing additional duties as 
long as the alert, alarm and malfunction signals can be seen or heard, 
and a timely response can be initiated. The final rule will assure that 
the AMS operator's other duties do not adversely affect the primary 
responsibility of responding to AMS signals.
    Commenters supported this provision, but were concerned that AMS 
operators may have other duties not directly related to safety and 
health. These commenters also stated that AMS operators should not have 
other responsibilities during an emergency.
    In response to these comments, the final rule adds a requirement 
clarifying that, in the event of an emergency, the sole responsibility 
of the AMS operator shall be to respond to the emergency. This will 
assure that an AMS operator is performing those duties essential to the 
safety and health of miners during an emergency.

Section 75.351(e)--Location of Sensors--Belt Air Course

    Final Sec.  75.351(e)(1), like the proposal, revises and renumbers 
existing Sec.  75.351(e). Under final Sec.  75.351(e)(1), the term 
``approved'' has been added to clarify that all sensors used for fire 
detection must be approved under existing Sec.  75.1103-2. In addition, 
the term ``smoke sensors'' has been deleted. The requirements for smoke 
sensors are addressed in final Sec.  75.351(e)(2).
    Final Sec. Sec.  75.351(e)(1)(i) and (ii), like the proposal, 
renumber existing Sec. Sec.  75.351(e)(1) and (2). Final Sec.  
75.351(e)(ii) makes nonsubstantive changes for clarity and ease of 
reading. No other changes have been made to these provisions.
    Final Sec.  75.351(e)(1)(iii), like the proposal, renumbers and 
revises existing Sec.  75.351(e)(3). It requires approved sensors 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. It also 
retains the existing requirement that in areas along each belt entry 
where air velocities are less than 50 feet per minute, the sensor 
spacing must not exceed 350 feet.
    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.

[[Page 80595]]

    The 500-foot spacing interval for velocities between 50 and 100 
fpm, like the proposal, is a new requirement. MSHA calculated the 
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.
    A commenter supported the provision, but stated that the 
effectiveness of the reduced sensor spacing should be demonstrated in 
the mine. The Agency has extensive experience and data on the air flow 
characteristics in belt conveyor entries, including tracer gas tests 
and ventilation surveys. That experience and data show that reduced 
sensor spacing requirements are effective for detecting carbon monoxide 
produced by a fire. MSHA believes further testing at each mine site is 
not necessary.
    Final Sec.  75.351(e)(1)(iv), like the proposal, renumbers and 
revises existing Sec.  75.351(e)(4). It requires approved sensors not 
to be more than 100 feet downwind of each belt drive unit, each 
tailpiece transfer point, and each belt take-up. In addition, 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. Also, 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.
    A commenter supported the proposal, and added that the sensors 
should also be visually examined during the preshift examination. 
Existing standards require these sensors to be visually examined at 
least once each shift because they are installed to comply with Sec.  
75.350(b). The examination can be made during either the preshift or 
on-shift examination.
    Another commenter suggested the provision should apply only to 
mines using air from the belt entry to ventilate the working section. 
While the final rule applies only to mines using air from the belt 
entry, the same requirement is included in final Sec.  75.1103-
4(a)(1)(i) and applies to all mines using belt haulage. Belt drives, 
tail pieces, transfer points and take-up units are potential fire 
sources. The additional sensors will assure earlier detection of a 
fire.
    Final Sec.  75.351(e)(1)(v), like the proposal, renumbers existing 
Sec.  75.351(e)(5). No other changes have been made.
    Final Sec.  75.351(e)(2), like the proposal, is a new provision. It 
requires smoke sensors to be installed to monitor the belt entry under 
final Sec.  75.350(b). The final rule addresses Panel Recommendation 9 
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.
    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.
    Final Sec.  75.351(e)(2)(i), like the proposal, requires a smoke 
sensor to be installed at or near the working section belt tailpiece in 
the air stream ventilating the belt entry. In addition, 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.
    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.
    Final Sec.  75.351(e)(2)(ii), like the proposal, requires 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. In 
addition, if the belt drive, tailpiece, and 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 located downwind of the last component. Also, 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. 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 and data, 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.
    Final Sec.  75.351(e)(2)(iii), like the proposal, requires smoke 
sensors to be installed at intervals not to exceed 3,000 feet along 
each belt entry. The Agency is not requiring a smoke sensor to be 
installed near the midpoint of the belt line as recommended by the 
Panel. The midpoint of the belt line will change as the section 
advances or retreats, 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 requirement for smoke sensors along the belt 
entry is responsive to the Panel's goal for more effective and reliable 
early detection of conveyor belt fires. The final rule would avoid 
problems associated with frequent relocation of the smoke sensor. The 
3,000-foot spacing requirement provides longer belts to be monitored at 
additional locations.
    Final Sec.  75.351(e)(2)(iv), like the proposal, provides that the 
smoke sensor requirements of this final rule are effective one year 
after the Secretary has determined that a smoke sensor is available to 
reliably detect fire in underground coal mines. This final rule is 
consistent with the Panel's suggested 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 mines. 
NIOSH is evaluating these sensors to assess reliability and service 
life.
    To allow for further in-mine evaluation and approval of smoke 
sensors, the Secretary's determination will 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.
    The final rule is based on the Secretary's authority under existing 
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.

[[Page 80596]]

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 a 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 (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 the belt entry 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.
    Some commenters supported the proposal, but stated that smoke 
sensors are currently available. They added that upon approval, 
installation should be immediate and not be delayed by allowing one 
year for compliance. Other commenters stated that smoke detectors 
should not be required until they are reliable and commercially 
available.
    NIOSH has not found smoke sensors to be reliable for fire detection 
in the mine environment. Research continues to identify technology that 
can be adapted to the mine environment, and MSHA intends to require 
smoke sensors when available. The Agency believes that one year is an 
appropriate time period for manufacturers to produce the sensors, and 
for mine operators to purchase and install them.
    A commenter supported the locations of smoke sensors but wanted 
sensors to be placed at intervals not to exceed 1,500 feet and to have 
smoke sensors placed at every transfer point along each belt line. 
Consistent with the Panel recommendation, the Agency believes a 3,000-
foot interval achieves the objective for placing a sensor near the 
midpoint of each belt flight. MSHA recognizes that once a smoke sensor 
has been approved for use in underground coal mines, adjustments to 
spacing requirements may be necessary based on in-mine testing.

Section 75.351(q)--Training

    Final Sec.  75.351(q)(1), like the proposal, revises existing Sec.  
75.351(q). It requires that all AMS operators must be trained annually 
in the proper operation of the AMS. It requires that training include 
the following subjects under final paragraphs (q)(1)(i) through (vii): 
Familiarity with underground mining systems; basic AMS 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.
    The final rule is consistent with Panel Recommendation 12 which 
specifies the content of required annual training for AMS operators.
    Under the final rule, training should 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.
    A commenter supported the specified content of the proposed 
training but stated that the training under the proposal should not be 
part of the annual Part 48 training. This commenter also stated that 
AMS operators should receive training on system maintenance and 
calibration in order to better judge when the system may need 
maintenance.
    The training required in the final rule is separate from annual 
refresher training in Part 48. AMS operators will receive training on 
those aspects of maintenance and calibration that are directly related 
to alert, alarm, and malfunction signals.
    Final Sec.  75.351(q)(2), like the proposal, is new and requires 
that, at least once every six months, all AMS operators must travel to 
all working sections. 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.
    Several commenters objected to the proposal, stating that some AMS 
operators are disabled and may not be able to travel underground 
safely. In support of their objection, they stated that some of these 
AMS operators are miners with substantial underground experience and, 
under the proposal, would be precluded from operating the AMS. Another 
commenter stated that accommodations can be made for disabled AMS 
operators to travel underground.
    Other commenters supported the proposal because they recognize the 
value of the AMS operator being familiar with underground workings. In 
their view, this familiarity gives AMS operators a greater sense of 
what needs to be done during an emergency. These commenters also stated 
that a greater frequency than every six months may be needed.
    Consistent with the Panel recommendation, MSHA believes it is 
important for AMS operators to travel underground to retain familiarity 
with underground mining systems including haulage, ventilation, 
communication, and escapeways. MSHA appreciates commenters' concerns 
for disabled miners, but the Agency believes that accommodations can be 
made to allow disabled AMS operators to meet this requirement. MSHA 
also believes that the six-month frequency recommended by the Panel is 
appropriate to provide AMS operators with current information on the 
underground operation.
    Final Sec.  75.351(q)(3) is changed from the proposal to be 
consistent with the existing requirement to keep training records for 
one year. It requires a record of the content training, the person 
conducting the training, and the date the training was conducted to be 
maintained at the mine for at least one year by the mine operator. The 
final rule allows MSHA to verify the training in the previous year has 
been conducted.
    Several commenters objected to the proposed requirement to maintain 
the training records for two years, stating that it was inconsistent 
with other existing record retention requirements. One commenter 
supported the proposal. For consistency, the final rule includes a one 
year record retention period.

[[Page 80597]]

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

    Final Sec.  75.352(f), like the proposal, makes a conforming 
reference and organizational changes to the existing standard. It 
deletes the term ``50-foot per minute'' and replaces the reference to 
Sec.  75.351(e)(3) with Sec.  75.350(b)(7).
    Final Sec.  75.352(g), like the proposal, is new. It requires that 
the AMS 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.
    The final rule addresses Panel Recommendation 16 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.
    The final rule provides that visual and audible signals 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. This 
information will assist miners in evacuating the mine.
    The Panel did not specify in which escapeway the signal is to be 
located. The final rule specifies that the signal 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, MSHA believes that 
it is more appropriate to locate the signal on the belt side of the 
regulator.
    A commenter stated that since the signal is in an area that is 
normally unmanned, it would not be useful. That commenter further 
stated that if a signal is required, it should only alarm when the 
point feed regulator has been closed, and the signal should only be 
required if the belt entry is designated as the alternate escapeway.
    Consistent with the Panel recommendation, the signal is required 
only where the belt entry is designated as the alternate escapeway. 
This would include any entries designated as the escapeway common with 
the belt. This signal must be given when sensors monitoring the primary 
escapeway indicate a potential fire. The signal, which is in addition 
to the signals provided to affected sections, will provide miners in 
the area with early notification that there is a potential fire in the 
primary intake, and that the alternate escapeway could become 
contaminated. The signal would allow those miners to take early and 
appropriate action.

Section 75.371--Mine Ventilation Plan; Contents

    Final Sec.  75.371(jj), like the proposal, revises the existing 
standard. It requires that the mine ventilation plan contain the 
locations and approved velocities at those locations where air 
velocities in the belt entry are above or below the limits set forth in 
final Sec.  75.350(a)(2) or final Sec. Sec.  75.350(b)(7) and 
75.350(b)(8).
    The final rule 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.
    Final Sec.  75.371(mm), like the proposal, revises the existing 
standard. It requires that the mine ventilation plan contain the 
location of any diesel-discriminating sensor, and additional carbon 
monoxide or smoke sensors installed in the belt air course.
    The final rule addresses Recommendation 10 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 diesel-discriminating sensors.
    Based on Agency experience and data, 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.
    The final rule provides that the district manager may require the 
use of diesel-discriminating sensors in the approved mine ventilation 
plan. It requires that the operator include in the ventilation plan the 
locations of any diesel-discriminating sensors. The district manager 
decision to require the use of these sensors will be based on mine 
conditions where diesel-powered equipment is used and excessive alert 
and alarm signals are caused by diesel exhaust. Since the final rule is 
applicable to all mines using belt haulage, the reference to existing 
Sec.  75.351(e)(5), that relates to mines using air from the belt entry 
to ventilate the working section, is deleted.
    MSHA conducts 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).
    Final Sec.  75.371(nn), like the proposal, revises the existing 
standard. It requires that the mine ventilation plan contain 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.
    This final rule addresses Panel Recommendation 8 on discontinuing 
the use of point-type heat sensors, and replacing them with carbon 
monoxide sensors for early fire detection in 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

[[Page 80598]]

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. Like the proposal, final Sec.  75.1103-4 
requires the use of carbon monoxide sensors. Therefore, time delays for 
these mines must also be approved in the mine ventilation plan. 
Accordingly, the final rule deletes the reference to existing Sec.  
75.351(m) because this final rule applies to all mines using belt 
haulage.
    Proposed Sec.  75.371(yy) would have required that the mine 
ventilation plan contain the locations where airlock doors are 
installed between air courses. Several commenters suggested that 
including the locations in the ventilation plan is unnecessary since 
those locations are already required on the mine ventilation map. 
Commenters also stated that no approval to install an airlock should be 
required in the ventilation plan. MSHA concurs that the mine 
ventilation map is the appropriate place to identify airlock locations. 
Therefore, proposed Sec.  75.371(yy) is not included in the final rule.
    Proposed Sec.  75.371(zz) is renumbered to Sec.  75.371(yy). It 
requires that the mine ventilation plan contain the locations where the 
pressure differential cannot be maintained from the primary escapeway 
to the belt entry.
    The final rule addresses Panel Recommendation 14 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 final rule allows 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.
    A commenter suggested that requiring approval in the ventilation 
plan of locations where pressure differentials cannot be maintained 
would require frequent and unnecessary changes. MSHA believes these 
areas must be identified in the plan to allow an evaluation of the 
methods used to limit air leakage into the primary escapeway. The 
Agency expects that in areas where the pressure differentials cannot be 
maintained from the primary escapeway to the belt, mine operators will 
provide additional protection to maintain the integrity of the primary 
escapeway. These protections would include enhanced stopping 
construction and design, or changes to the ventilation system.

Sections 75.380--Escapeways; Bituminous and Lignite Mines, and 75.381--
Escapeways; Anthracite Mines

    Final Sec. Sec.  75.380(d)(7)(v) and 75.381(c)(5)(v), like the 
proposal, revise the existing standards. They require that each 
lifeline be equipped with one directional indicator cone securely 
attached to the lifeline, signifying the route of escape, placed at 
intervals not exceeding 100 feet. In addition, cones must be installed 
so that the tapered section points inby. The final rule adds the phrase 
``securely attached to the lifeline'' to clarify the Agency's intent 
under the proposal.
    Final Sec. Sec.  75.380(d)(7)(vi) and 75.381(c)(5)(vi), are 
renumbered and changed from proposed Sec. Sec.  75.380(d)(7)(vii) and 
75.381(c)(5)(vii). They require each lifeline to be equipped with one 
sphere (such as a tennis ball) securely attached to the lifeline at 
each intersection where personnel doors are installed in adjacent 
crosscuts.
    Final Sec. Sec.  75.380(d)(7)(vii) and 75.381(c)(5)(vii), are new. 
The final rule responds to comments by simplifying the proposal. The 
final rule requires that each lifeline be equipped with two securely 
attached cones, installed in succession with the tapered section 
pointing inby, to signify an attached branch line is immediately ahead.
    Final Sec. Sec.  75.380(d)(7)(vii)(A) and 75.381(c)(5)(vii)(A) are 
renumbered and changed from proposed Sec. Sec.  75.380(d)(7)(vi) and 
75.381(c)(5)(vi). They require a branch line leading from the lifeline 
to an SCSR cache to be marked with four cones with the base sections in 
contact to form two diamond shapes. The cones must be placed within 
reach of the lifeline.
    Final Sec. Sec.  75.380(d)(7)(vii)(B) and 75.381(c)(5)(vii)(B) are 
renumbered and changed from proposed Sec. Sec.  75.380(d)(7)(ix) and 
75.381(c)(5)(ix). They require a branch line leading from the lifeline 
to a refuge alternative to be marked with a rigid spiraled coil at 
least eight inches in length. The spiraled coil must be placed within 
reach of the lifeline.
    Proposed Sec. Sec.  75.380(d)(7)(viii) and 75.381(c)(5)(viii), 
which required each lifeline be marked to provide tactile feedback 
distinguishable from other markings to indicate the location of 
physical impediments in the escapeways, are not included in the final 
rule.
    The final rules address Panel Recommendation 15. The Panel made 
recommendations on tactile signals attached to lifelines and signal 
standardization.
    Several commenters supported the proposed standardization of 
tactile signals, but believed the proposed rule created a system of 
cones that was too complicated. These commenters wanted a simpler 
system that would be easier to remember during a mine emergency. 
Several of these commenters also stressed the need for adequate 
training for miners.
    Another commenter believed standardization was not necessary, and 
that mines should be permitted to continue to use signals they have 
developed, which have been used for an extended period of time. This 
commenter believed changing the tactile signals may create confusion. 
This commenter also stated the proposal would require replacing miles 
of lifeline in their mine and retraining hundreds of miners for little 
benefit.
    During the rulemaking process and at the beginning of each public 
hearing, the Agency specifically solicited comments on alternate 
tactile signal markings. The Agency received no specific comments 
suggesting alternatives to its proposal.
    In response to comments, the final rule requires a simpler system 
of tactile signals. The Agency continues to believe that a standardized 
system 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.
    The final rule requires only three signals to be attached to the 
lifeline. These are for direction of travel, location of personnel 
doors, and to alert miners that a branch line is ahead that would lead 
to either an SCSR storage cache or a refuge alternative. Additional 
signals are required on the branch lines to identify whether it leads 
to an SCSR storage cache or a refuge alternative. Illustration 1 shows 
how these signals should be installed.

[[Page 80599]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31DE08.000

    The final rule does not include a tactile signal to indicate the 
location of physical impediments in the escapeway. By not including 
this signal, the Agency has simplified the signals on the lifeline. The 
Agency believes that the locations of physical impediments can be 
addressed during evacuation training.
    In another rulemaking, MSHA is establishing new requirements for 
refuge alternatives in underground coal mines. Because tactile signals 
on lifelines are addressed in this final rule, to provide a 
comprehensive and integrated approach for these requirements, the 
Agency is including the requirement for tactile signals leading to 
refuge alternatives in this rulemaking. In the proposal, the Agency 
would have required a two-foot rigid coil as a tactile signal for 
refuge alternatives. The proposed requirement has been changed to a 
rigid spiraled coil at least eight inches in length.
    These signals, when integrated with the comprehensive escape and 
evacuation plan, including escapeway drills and expectation training, 
will help miners understand the differences in, and significance of, 
tactile signals and aid in evacuating the mine.
    Existing Sec. Sec.  75.380(d)(7) and 75.381(c)(5) require 
escapeways to be provided with lifelines or an equivalent device. The 
new requirements for tactile signals are applicable to any device used 
to comply with these sections.
    Final Sec. Sec.  75.380(f) and 75.381(e), like the proposal, revise 
the existing standards on the primary escapeway. They provide that one 
escapeway, ventilated with intake air, shall be designated as the 
primary escapeway. The final rules require that 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 must be approved by the district manager.
    The final rules address Panel Recommendation 14. The Panel 
recommended that primary escapeways should be designed, constructed, 
and maintained in accordance with the provisions of existing Sec. Sec.  
75.333(b) through (d) to minimize the air leakage. The Panel also 
recommended that primary escapeways be ventilated with intake air 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 the 
escapeway to the belt entry. In case of a fire in the belt entry, the 
primary escapeway would not become contaminated. Under the final rule, 
an operator may submit an alternative in the mine ventilation plan, 
based on mine specific conditions, to protect the integrity of the 
primary escapeway. The alternative must be approved by the district 
manager.
    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

[[Page 80600]]

removed, ventilation controls must be properly repaired.
    The Agency does not support the use of 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.
    Commenters stated that mine operators should be required to 
maintain the pressure differential from the primary escapeway to the 
belt entry at all times, and that alternatives should not be approved 
in the mine ventilation plan, but only in petitions for modification. A 
commenter also stated the pressure in the primary escapeway should at 
all times be at least 50 percent higher than that in the belt entry.
    Other commenters indicated that maintaining the pressure 
differential as proposed may not be feasible in all areas of the mine.
    Consistent with the Panel recommendation, MSHA believes that to the 
extent possible, the primary escapeway should have a higher pressure 
than the belt entry. The Agency's action in the final rule reflects the 
Agency's opinion that it is not possible to maintain the primary 
escapeway at a pressure 50 percent higher than the belt entry in all 
areas of the mine, as suggested by commenters. This is especially so on 
development sections where pressures equalize near the section loading 
point. Due to unique conditions in mines, the district manager is the 
appropriate official to make determinations regarding alternatives to 
maintaining the pressure differential based upon a review of the mine 
operator's proposed revision to the mine ventilation plan.

Subpart L--Fire Protection

Section 75.1103-4--Automatic Fire Sensor and Warning Device Systems; 
Installation; Minimum Requirements

    Final Sec.  75.1103-4, like the proposal, requires the use of 
carbon monoxide sensors for fire detection along belt conveyors in all 
underground coal mines. In addition, the final rule includes 
installation, maintenance, operating and training requirements related 
to the use of carbon monoxide sensors.
    Final Sec.  75.1103-4(a), like the proposal, requires that on 
December 31, 2009 automatic fire sensor and warning device systems that 
use carbon monoxide sensors shall provide identification of fire along 
all belt conveyors.
    The final rule eliminates the existing requirement to identify the 
belt flight on which the system detects fire. When point-type heat 
sensors 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.
    The final rule supersedes granted petitions for modification that 
allowed mine operators to use carbon monoxide sensors equivalent to 
point-type heat sensors. Mines operating under these petitions must 
comply with the requirements in the final rule. Mines that have 
installed carbon monoxide sensors in lieu of point-type heat sensors 
must comply with the final rule.
    Commenters supported the proposal. A commenter stated that carbon 
monoxide sensors provide for a safer method of detecting fires than 
point-type heat sensors.
    Final Sec.  75.1103-4(a)(1), like the proposal, requires 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.
    Final Sec.  75.1103-4(a)(1)(i), like the proposal, requires 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. 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 
exceeds 100 feet, additional sensors are required to monitor each of 
these belt conveyor components.
    A commenter supported the proposal. Other commenters objected to 
the proposal, stating that additional sensors would be unnecessary, 
require additional maintenance, and could be the source of false 
alarms. Another commenter stated that one sensor should be allowed to 
monitor a belt transfer consisting of a drive, take-up, and a tailpiece 
if all are in the same ventilation stream.
    A commenter was concerned that installation of the sensor at an 
existing belt drive could expose miners to risks when working at 
heights. To avoid these risks, the commenter stated that these sensors 
should not be installed at existing belt drives but only at belt drives 
installed in the future.
    As stated in the proposal, this requirement is intended to provide 
early fire detection at the belt drive where there are multiple belt 
components, which are potential fire sources, and the distance between 
these components exceeds 100 feet. The final rule allows one sensor to 
monitor the drive, take-up, and tailpiece if the distance is less than 
100 feet. When sensors need to be installed in high places, the mine 
operator can use mechanisms that allow sensors to be temporarily 
lowered to a location where they can be safely accessed for maintenance 
purposes.
    Final Sec.  75.1103-4(a)(1)(ii), like the proposal, requires a 
sensor to be installed in the belt entry not more than 100 feet 
downwind of each section loading point. This sensor monitors the 
section loading point, and provides miners on the section with warning 
of fire in the belt entry. A commenter supported the proposal.
    Final Sec.  75.1103-4(a)(1)(iii), like the proposal, requires 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 350-foot spacing requirement 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.
    A commenter stated that the spacing requirement should be modified 
so that sensors are placed every 500 feet to allow the location of a 
fire to be detected with greater accuracy. Another commenter stated 
that 2,000 feet spacing of sensors is effective.
    Another commenter stated that 500 feet would be more appropriate 
spacing for carbon monoxide sensors where the velocity along the belt 
is less than 50 feet per minute.
    NIOSH research on sensor spacing has shown that 1,000 feet is the 
appropriate distance for air velocities of least 50 fpm. Additional 
NIOSH research has demonstrated that reduced sensor spacing of 350 feet 
is necessary when air velocities are less than 50 fpm to maintain early 
fire detection capabilities.
    As discussed earlier, MSHA uses representative cross-sectional 
areas when determining air velocities. MSHA would not use large areas 
(such as belt channels, boom holes, and fall areas) and restricted 
areas (such as overcasts) to determine air velocities.

[[Page 80601]]

    Proposed Sec.  75.1103-4(a)(1)(iv) has not been included in the 
final rule. It would have required 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.
    A commenter stated that the sensor required under the proposal is 
unnecessary because it provides little additional information and 
should be addressed in the ventilation plan if needed. MSHA concurs 
that this sensor is not necessary. The Agency expects the location of 
the sensors required in the final rule will provide precise information 
on the location of a fire in the belt entry.
    Final Sec.  75.1103-4(a)(1)(iv) is new, clarifies MSHA's intent 
under the proposal, and requires that the location and identification 
of all carbon monoxide sensors be included on the mine maps required 
under existing Sec. Sec.  75.1200 and 75.1505. MSHA has included this 
clarification in response to a comment that the location of sensors be 
on a mine map that is available to miners. This is consistent with the 
existing standard related to identifying the location of stored SCSRs.
    Final Sec.  75.1103-4(a)(2), like the proposal, requires that 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 this final rule.
    The final rule removes the reference to point-type heat sensors and 
replaces it with carbon monoxide sensors. As stated earlier, point-type 
heat sensors cannot be used for fire detection along belt conveyors.
    A commenter supported this proposal and stated that point-type heat 
sensors should only be used to activate fire suppression systems.
    Final Sec.  75.1103-4(a)(3), like the proposal, requires that 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 and put in operation within 24 
production shift hours. When sensors of the kind described in paragraph 
(a)(2) of this section are used, they shall be installed and put in 
operation within 24 production shift hours after the equivalent 
distance that has been established for the sensor from the tailpiece at 
loading points to the first outby sensor is first reached.
    The final rule removes the 125-foot spacing requirement for point-
type heat sensors and replaces it with conforming requirements for 
carbon monoxide sensor spacing. Because point-type heat sensors are no 
longer permitted, spacing for the devices is no longer applicable. 
Carbon monoxide sensors must 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. A commenter supported the 
proposal.
    Final Sec.  75.1103-4(b), like the proposal, requires that sensors 
be installed to minimize the possibility of damage from roof falls and 
the moving belt and its load. The 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 fire detection system to unsafe 
conditions. The final rule requires that sensors 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 requirement on the results of NIOSH research and 
Agency experience with carbon monoxide sensors. 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 install sensors, fire detection can be hindered or delayed. 
For example, sensors that are installed 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.
    The final rule 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 prevents miners 
from being exposed to hazards such as a moving belt when calibrating or 
examining sensors. A commenter supported the proposal.
    The final rules, and those in Sec. Sec.  75.1103-5, 75.1103-6, and 
75.1103-8 discussed below, address Panel Recommendation 8. The Panel 
recommended that MSHA initiate rulemaking to discontinue the use of 
point-type heat sensors 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 point-
type heat sensors. The Panel concluded that there are inherent 
inadequacies with point-type heat sensors for reliable early-warning 
belt fire detection. According to the Panel's report, carbon monoxide 
sensors can detect fires at an earlier stage of fire development than 
point-type heat sensors. The Panel found the time it took for point-
type heat sensors 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 point-type heat sensors 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 point-
type heat sensors. MSHA's accident investigation report of the Dilworth 
mine fire (MSHA, 1992 Greene County, PA), revealed that carbon monoxide 
sensors were superior to point-type heat sensors, 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.

Section 75.1103-5--Automatic Fire Warning Devices; Actions and 
Response.

    Final Sec.  75.1103-5, like the proposal, has been retitled. It 
adds requirements for initiating warning signals and responses for 
automating fire warning devices.
    Final Sec.  75.1103-5(a), like the proposal, requires that when the 
carbon monoxide level reaches 10 parts per million (ppm) above the 
established 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, they must be located where they can be seen or heard. 
MSHA experience also 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 solicited comments on the proposal. A commenter 
supported it. Another commenter stated that at mines

[[Page 80602]]

not using air from the belt entry to ventilate working sections, a 
warning level should be given at 10 ppm and an alarm at 15 ppm. The 
final rule is based on a NIOSH research recommendation that a carbon 
monoxide fire warning and withdrawal of miners be initiated at 10 ppm 
above the ambient level.
    Final Sec.  75.1103-5(a)(1), like the proposal, requires 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 under existing Sec.  75.1502. A commenter supported the 
proposal.
    Final Sec.  75.1103-5(a)(2), like the proposal, requires that the 
warning signal be provided at a manned surface location where personnel 
have an assigned post of duty.
    MSHA believes that providing the warning at a manned surface 
location will facilitate timely and effective evacuation of miners and 
improve communication with mine management. This will also facilitate 
more effective decision-making in a mine emergency and 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.
    Commenters requested clarification on the term ``assigned post of 
duty''. Another commenter supported the proposal. The term ``assigned 
post of duty'' is not new and was in a requirement for mines using 
point-type heat sensors. It refers to the location where miners are 
regularly assigned to work and are able to see or hear the warning 
signal.
    Final Sec.  75.1103-5(a)(2)(i), like the proposal, retains the 
existing requirement for having a telephone or equivalent communication 
with all miners who may be endangered.
    A commenter stated that the final rule should also recognize a PED 
(personal emergency device) as an equivalent communication. A PED is 
not equivalent to a telephone because it does not provide two way 
communications, which is essential during a mine emergency.
    Final Sec.  75.1103-5(a)(2)(ii), like the proposal, is new. It 
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 map or schematic must be updated within 
24 hours of any change in information.
    The final rule 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.
    A commenter stated that this information should also be on the mine 
bulletin board so that it is available to miners. The final rule has 
been changed to specify that the location of all carbon monoxide 
sensors be included on the mine maps required under Sec. Sec.  75.1200 
and 75.1505. These maps are available to miners.
    Final Sec.  75.1103-5(a)(3), like the proposal, is derived from the 
existing standard, and has not been changed, except for the numbering.
    Final Sec. Sec.  75.1103-5(d) through (h), like the proposal, are 
new provisions which specify responses required to signals from the 
automatic fire warning devices. They are consistent with requirements 
for responses to AMS signals in existing Sec.  75.352 and apply to all 
mines using belt haulage.
    Final Sec. Sec.  75.1103-5(d), like the proposal, requires that 
when a malfunction or warning signal is received at the surface 
location, 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.
    Final Sec.  75.1103-5(e), like the proposal, requires that 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 action set 
forth in Sec.  75.1103-5(f). The final rule requires immediate 
corrective actions to assure that the appropriate responses are taken 
in case of an emergency.
    Commenters requested clarification on the term immediately as used 
in the proposal because the responses required may take longer than 15 
minutes to accomplish. Another commenter supported the proposal.
    The term immediately in the final rule means that the required 
actions must be promptly initiated after a malfunction or warning 
signal is received. The amount of time it takes to resolve the issue 
depends on the occurrence. MSHA does not intend that the use of the 
term immediate in the final rule be defined by the 15-minute immediate 
accident notification requirement in existing Sec.  50.10.
    Final Sec.  75.1103-5(f), like the proposal, requires specific 
procedures to be followed if any sensor indicates a warning, unless the 
mine operator determines that the signal 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 that actions in response to carbon 
monoxide malfunction or warning signals 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.
    Final Sec.  75.1103-5(f)(1), like the proposal, requires 
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 existing approved mine 
emergency evacuation and firefighting program of instruction when a 
warning signal is received.
    Commenters questioned the need for appropriate personnel to notify 
miners in addition to providing the automatic signal. Another commenter 
supported the proposal.
    It is necessary for appropriate personnel to notify miners, in 
addition to the automatic signal, to assure that miners receive the 
warning and withdrawal is initiated. Notification under this final 
standard facilitates two-way communication among those involved and 
those responsible for addressing the emergency, and thus enhances 
successful decision-making.
    Final Sec.  75.1103-5(f)(2), like the proposal, requires 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 final 
rule, miners who are assigned emergency response duties do not have to 
be withdrawn.
    Commenters stated that immediate withdrawal of all miners in 
affected areas upon notification of a warning signal without 
investigation would be a problem when there are false alarms.

[[Page 80603]]

Another commenter supported the proposal.
    Once a warning signal is received, there is a significant 
likelihood that a fire has occurred and, in the confined area of an 
underground mine, miners must be immediately withdrawn. Waiting for the 
results of an investigation could put miners at risk of being trapped 
by the fire. If false alarms are occurring, the mine operator should 
take action to reduce those alarms, such as installing diesel-
discriminating or hydrogen-insensitive sensors, or programming time 
delays.
    Final Sec.  75.1103-5(g), like the proposal, requires 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 final rule is changed to require 
that the notification be provided to affected working sections and 
other areas where miners may be endangered.
    This requirement is necessary so that miners know that a warning 
signal is not a fire. This will 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.
    A commenter stated that the proposal could be read to require that 
notice be provided to each miner before calibration of sensors can 
begin. Another commenter supported the proposal.
    Under the proposal, MSHA did not intend that the mine operator 
directly notify each miner on the section before calibration of sensors 
can begin. The mine operator must assure that appropriate personnel on 
the section are notified, who will then be responsible for informing 
other miners of warning signals caused by calibration.
    Final Sec.  75.1103-5(h), like the proposal, requires that if any 
fire detection component becomes inoperative, immediate action must be 
taken to repair the component. While repairs are being made, the belt 
may continue to operate if the requirements in final Sec. Sec.  
75.1103-5(h)(1) through (h)(6) are met.
    Final Sec.  75.1103-5(h)(1), like the proposal, requires that when 
only one sensor is inoperative, continued operation of the belt is 
permitted when a trained person is stationed at the sensor and monitors 
the air for carbon monoxide using a hand-held detector.
    Final Sec.  75.1103-5(h)(2), like the proposal, requires that when 
two or more adjacent sensors are inoperative, continued operation of 
the belt is permitted if the area monitored by these sensors is 
patrolled so the area is traveled each hour in its entirety. 
Alternatively, a trained person must be stationed at each inoperative 
sensor to monitor for carbon monoxide.
    Final Sec.  75.1103-5(h)(3), like the proposal, requires that if 
the complete fire detection system becomes inoperative continued 
operation of the belt is permitted if the area monitored by these 
sensors is patrolled so the area is traveled each hour in its entirety.
    Final Sec.  75.1103-5(h)(4), like the proposal, requires the 
trained persons who conduct monitoring under the final rule to have 
two-way voice communication capability at intervals not to exceed 2,000 
feet. The final rule requires that persons conducting monitoring must 
report carbon monoxide levels to the surface at intervals not to exceed 
one hour.
    Final Sec.  75.1103-5(h)(5), like the proposal, requires that 
trained persons who conduct monitoring under the final rule to 
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.
    Final Sec.  75.1103-5(h)(6), like the proposal, requires that 
handheld detectors used to monitor the belt entry under the final rule 
have a detection level equivalent to that of the carbon monoxide 
sensors.
    These requirements 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. Otherwise, the belt must be taken out of 
service until necessary repairs are made. A commenter supported the 
proposal.

Section 75.1103-6--Automatic Fire Sensors; Actuation of Fire 
Suppression Systems

    Final Sec.  75.1103-6, like the proposal, specifies that point-type 
heat sensors or automatic fire sensor and warning device systems 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, 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. A commenter supported the proposal.

Section 75.1103-8--Automatic Fire Sensor and Warning Device Systems; 
Examination and Test Requirements

    Final Sec.  75.1103-8(a), like the proposal, requires that 
automatic fire sensor and warning device systems 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 be made at least once 
every seven days. The final rule does not include the term inspection 
that was in the proposal to clarify that examination and maintenance of 
the system must be made by a qualified person.
    Increased frequency of examinations and functional tests of the 
system better assures that the system will effectively maintain its 
fire warning capability so that it can provide adequate warning to 
miners in the event of a fire. The increased examinations will also 
alert the mine operator to any damaged or missing sensors and alarm 
units.
    Under the final rule, 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. Consistent with existing practice, MSHA expects 
that functional tests will 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 examination requirements can be 
integrated into required preshift and on-shift examinations under 
existing Sec. Sec.  75.360 and 75.362. The examinations should identify 
any problems with sensors such as improper installation, damaged or 
missing sensors, cables and alarm units.
    A commenter objected to the weekly testing requirement in the 
proposal. Other commenters stated that presently carbon monoxide 
sensors are tested and calibrated monthly and that increasing the 
frequency of testing will increase maintenance costs and reduce the 
life of carbon monoxide sensors. These commenters also requested 
clarification on whether the functional testing could be performed 
monthly.
    Commenters also requested that the Agency clarify the terms 
inspection and examination, which are used interchangeably in the 
proposal. These commenters also requested clarification on whether a 
functional test must be performed on each sensor every seven days and 
whether gas must be applied

[[Page 80604]]

as part of the testing procedure. They stated that weekly testing would 
be burdensome for large mines and that monthly functional testing and 
calibration would be sufficient.
    Another commenter supported the proposal, stating that it provided 
the upkeep needed for the carbon monoxide sensors to maintain their 
accuracy.
    Under the final rule, the weekly functional test does not require 
carbon monoxide to be applied to every sensor. The purpose of the test 
is to determine if the alarm units are working properly. Carbon 
monoxide only needs to be applied to a sufficient number of sensors to 
activate every alarm. For example, to satisfy this requirement, carbon 
monoxide could be applied to only one sensor on each section to 
activate the alarm. Alternatively, a single sensor could be installed 
on the surface or underground that is programmed to activate all alarms 
in the mine.
    The functional test must be conducted at least once every seven 
days. The seven-day frequency is consistent with the Agency's existing 
testing procedures for carbon monoxide sensors for all mines using 
these sensors in lieu of point-type heat sensors. The functional tests 
are currently being performed, either as part of an approved mine 
ventilation plan or a granted petition for modification.
    Final Sec.  75.1103-8(b), like the proposal, requires that the mine 
operator maintain a record of the functional tests and keep the records 
for a period of 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. Like the proposal, the final 
rule deletes the existing requirement that a record card of the weekly 
inspection of point-type heat sensors be kept at each belt drive since 
the final rule requires carbon monoxide sensors.
    Commenters requested that the final rule specify where the records 
of functional tests are to be located and maintained. Under the final 
rule, mine operators can determine how and where records would be 
maintained so long as they are kept for a period of one year.
    Final Sec.  75.1103-8(c), like the proposal, requires that carbon 
monoxide sensors be calibrated according to manufacturer's instructions 
at intervals not to exceed 31 days. In addition, the final rule 
requires a record of sensor calibrations to be kept for a period of one 
year.
    MSHA experience and data have 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. 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. Comments supported 
the proposal.
    The final rule also makes conforming changes to existing Sec.  
75.1103-10. The final rule removes the reference to belt that is not 
fire resistant and to the maximum distance between point-type heat 
sensors. No substantive changes were made to the existing standard.

Subpart R--Miscellaneous

Section 75.1731--Maintenance of Belt Conveyors and Belt Conveyor 
Entries

    Final Sec.  75.1731(a) modifies the proposal, and requires that 
damaged rollers, or other damaged belt conveyor components, which pose 
a fire hazard must be immediately repaired or replaced. Under the final 
rule, all other damaged rollers, or other damaged belt conveyor 
components, must be repaired or replaced.
    Final Sec.  75.1731(b), like the proposal, requires that conveyor 
belts be properly aligned to prevent the moving belt from rubbing 
against the support structure or components.
    Final Sec.  75.1731(c) modifies the proposal, and prohibits 
materials in the belt conveyor entry where the material may contribute 
to a frictional heating hazard.
    Final Sec.  75.1731(d), like the proposal, requires that splicing 
of any approved conveyor belt must maintain flame-resistant properties 
of the belt.
    These requirements address Panel Recommendations 1, 5, 6 and 14 
regarding belt entry and conveyor belt maintenance. They apply to all 
underground coal mines using belt haulage.
    In its report, the Panel recommended that MSHA rigorously enforce 
existing standards on underground conveyor belt maintenance and fire 
protection, and improve inspection procedures. The Panel 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 report, the Panel cited the findings of MSHA's investigation 
into the Aracoma Alma Mine No. 1 belt fire as evidence of inadequate 
belt maintenance (MSHA Fatal Accident Report, Aracoma, Logan County, 
WV, 2007). MSHA identified deficiencies in belt maintenance and 
examinations as root causes of the fire.
    MSHA believes prevention of belt fires is a critical element in 
improving miners' safety, and proper maintenance and examinations will 
reduce the likelihood of fires. Improper belt examinations can lead to 
uncorrected hazards. This can result in frictional heating of 
combustibles in the belt entry, which could cause a fire. These 
requirements will assure that mine operators will implement proper mine 
examination and maintenance procedures and that belt examiners will 
identify and correct hazardous conditions in the conveyor belt entry to 
improve safety of miners.
    Existing Sec.  75.400 addresses accumulation of combustible 
materials, but it does not address materials in the belt entry that may 
contribute to a frictional heating hazard. These materials may include 
rock, trash, discarded conveyor belt parts, posts, and cribs. These 
materials may become potential frictional ignition sources and result 
in a belt fire. MSHA does not intend that these materials include rock 
dust used in the belt entry.
    It is essential that any splices in the belt maintain the fire 
resistant properties of the belt so that the belt will continue to 
perform as intended in the approval and 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, it is included in this 
final rule.
    A commenter stated that damaged rollers and other malfunctioning 
belt components can result in the frictional heating of combustibles. 
This commenter also stated that damaged rollers can be identified 
during the preshift examination and repaired or replaced at the 
beginning of the next shift.
    Commenters requested clarification of the proposed terms damaged, 
malfunctioning, and immediately. Commenters also objected to the 
proposed term immediately because the proposal did not connect the 
requirement for immediate replacement of the damaged belt roller or 
malfunctioning component with a hazardous condition. A commenter also 
noted that immediate replacement of damaged belt rollers or 
malfunctioning components is not always feasible or practical, and that 
it may be more

[[Page 80605]]

appropriate for replacement to occur on a maintenance shift. These 
commenters also stated that existing regulations adequately address 
this concern.
    In response to comments, the final rule does not include the 
reference to malfunctioning belt conveyor components, and clarifies 
that immediate repair or replacement is only required when damaged 
rollers, or other damaged belt conveyor components, pose a fire hazard. 
All other damaged rollers, or other damaged belt conveyor components, 
must be repaired.
    A commenter stated that where the accumulation of noncombustible 
materials does not create an immediate fire hazard, miners should 
correct the condition on the next shift.
    Another commenter stated that the proposal was unnecessary and 
vague. Commenters wanted the terms noncombustible and accumulation 
clarified, and the final rule to address frictional heating or 
ignition. These commenters wanted clarification of whether the 
accumulation of waste rock, rock dust, gob materials, or other 
noncombustible materials would be prohibited. Commenters also wanted to 
know whether an accumulation of noncombustible materials in a crosscut 
would be prohibited. Other commenters stated that existing regulations 
adequately address the proposal.
    After reviewing all comments, the final rule is changed from the 
proposal to require that materials not be allowed in the belt conveyor 
entry if the material may contribute to a frictional heating hazard. 
Under the final rule, materials may be stored in crosscuts or other 
locations if they do not contribute to a hazard.
    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 this standard or other existing standards 
appropriately address 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 materials that may 
contribute to a frictional heating hazard.
    Several commenters asked how MSHA would determine that splices 
maintain the flame-resistant properties of the belt. During the 
rulemaking process, and at the public hearings, MSHA specifically 
raised the issue of how the Agency should determine flame resistance 
and indicated that the Agency was considering implementing a program to 
evaluate splice kits.
    In response to these comments, MSHA will, at the request of 
approval holders or mine operators, make a suitability evaluation to 
determine if a splice kit maintains flame-resistant properties of the 
belt. This approach will be similar to the evaluations MSHA makes for 
stoppings and sealants. MSHA will place a list of suitable splice kits 
on the Agency's Web site and provide the list to interested 
stakeholders. Under the final rule, splice kits which have been 
evaluated by MSHA must be used when splicing Part 14 belts after 
December 31, 2009.

IV. Regulatory Economic Analysis

A. 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 Regulatory Economic Analysis (REA) for the 
final rule. The REA 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 REA is located on MSHA's Web site at http://www.msha.gov/REGSINFO.HTM. A copy of the REA can be obtained from 
MSHA's Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances at the address in 
the ADDRESSES section of the preamble.
    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 REA, MSHA has determined that the 
final rule will not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on 
the economy and that, therefore, it is not an economically significant 
regulatory action. MSHA has concluded that the final rule is otherwise 
significant because it raises novel legal or policy issues.

B. Population at Risk

    The final rule will apply to all underground coal mines in the 
United States. As of 2007, MSHA data reveal that there were 624 
underground coal mines, employing 42,207 miners, operating in the 
United States.

C. Benefits

    MSHA has evaluated the safety benefits of the final 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 final rule will 
implement Section 11 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 final rule on improved flame-resistant conveyor belts will 
reduce belt entry fires in underground coal mines and will 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 Aracoma 
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. The final 
rule will prevent conveyor belt fires and, in turn, reduce accidents, 
injuries, and deaths caused by conveyor belt fires.
    The final rule on fire prevention and detection and approval of the 
use of air from the belt entry in underground coal mines will improve 
miner safety. The requirements addressing maintenance of the belt 
conveyor and belt conveyor entry will improve safety of miners by 
requiring related hazards to be corrected. 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 final 
rule will also require that damaged components be repaired or replaced 
and that materials contributing to a frictional heating hazard not be 
allowed in the belt entry.
    The requirement to replace point-type heat sensors with carbon 
monoxide sensors for fire detection along belt conveyors in all 
underground coal mines will enhance miner safety because carbon 
monoxide sensors provide earlier fire detection. Earlier fire

[[Page 80606]]

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 requirement for AMS operator training will improve safety 
for miners by assuring that AMS operators will have the knowledge to 
respond properly to AMS signals. The training of miners as AMS 
operators will assure that MSHA has oversight in the development and 
approval of the task training, and annual retraining requirements will 
assure that AMS operators retain knowledge and training needed to 
perform specific duties and responsibilities. These training 
requirements will also assure that AMS operators are familiar with 
underground mining systems such as coal haulage, transportation, 
ventilation, and escape facilities.
    The requirement for a higher ventilating pressure in the primary 
escapeway than the belt entry will 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 will 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 requirement for lifelines to be marked with standardized 
tactile signals will aid miners evacuating the mine where visibility is 
obscured by smoke. New standardized signals will be required to: 
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 will also be standardized. Standardization will allow for 
uniform understanding of the signals so that miners who transfer 
between mines will not need to learn new signal systems, and will 
reduce the possibility of confusion, delay, or injury during an 
emergency.

D. 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 
final rule. MSHA estimated costs to mine operators for the following 
requirements: Improved flame-resistant conveyor belt; installation and 
maintenance of carbon monoxide sensors in all underground coal mines; 
improved maintenance of conveyor belts and conveyor belt entries; AMS 
operator duties; standardized lifeline signals; installation of 
airlocks along escapeways; maintaining higher pressure in the escapeway 
than the belt entry; and an additional sensor and alarm unit on point-
feed regulators in mines using air from the belt entry.
    MSHA estimates total first year costs will be approximately $65 
million, including approximately $44 million for the improved flame-
resistant belts, and approximately $21 million for the remaining 
requirements.
    MSHA estimates that the final rule will result in total yearly 
costs of approximately $52 million, including approximately $100,000 in 
yearly costs to manufacturers of conveyor belts. Yearly costs will be 
approximately $5 million for mine operators with fewer than 20 
employees, approximately $21,000 per mine for the 223 mines in this 
size category. Yearly costs will be approximately $43 million for mine 
operators with 20-500 employees, approximately $110,000 per mine for 
the 391 mines in this size category. Yearly costs will be approximately 
$4 million for mine operators with more than 500 employees, 
approximately $410,000 per mine for the 10 mines in this size category.
    The $52 million in yearly costs consist of approximately: $40.4 
million for improved flame-resistant conveyor belt; $6.3 million for 
installation and maintenance of carbon monoxide sensors in all 
underground coal mines; $3.5 million for improved maintenance of 
conveyor belts and conveyor belt entries; $1 million for AMS operator 
duties; $150,000 for standardized lifeline signals; and $73,000 for 
other provisions mentioned above.
    MSHA estimates the yearly cost for smoke sensors to be 
approximately $460,000; however, this amount is based on the cost of 
existing smoke sensors and may not reflect their actual cost when 
approved for underground mine use. Therefore, this cost is not included 
in the yearly costs of the final rule.
    Table 1 is a summary of the approximate yearly costs of the final 
rule by mine size and requirement.

                                                     Table 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Final 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...............  $100,000.
 (Manufacturers).
CO Sensors......................  $660,000..........  $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................  $16,000...........  $130,000..........  $7,300............  $150,000.
Other provisions................  $1,500............  $64,000...........  $7,800............  $73,000.
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  $5 million........  $43 million.......  $4 million........  $52 million.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 80607]]

V. Feasibility

    MSHA has concluded that the requirements of the final rule will be 
both technologically and economically feasible.

A. Technological Feasibility

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

B. Economic Feasibility

    The yearly compliance cost of the final rule will be approximately 
$51.5 million for underground coal mines, which is 0.37 percent of 
annual revenue of $14.0 billion for all underground coal mines. MSHA 
concludes that the final rule will 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 final 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 final rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual 
basis for this certification is in the REA and summarized below.

A. Definition of a Small Mine

    Under the RFA, in analyzing the impact of the final 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 the final 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 final rule and the impact of the final 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 will 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 $40.29 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 final rule for mines 
with 500 or fewer employees is estimated to be approximately $47.4 
million, or approximately $77,000 per mine. This is equal to 
approximately 0.42 percent of annual revenue. Since the yearly cost of 
the final rule is less than one percent of annual revenues for small 
underground coal mines, as defined by SBA, MSHA has certified that the 
final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number 
of small mining entities, as defined by SBA.
    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 $40.29 per ton, MSHA estimates that 
underground coal revenue was approximately $310 million for mines with 
fewer than 20 employees. The yearly cost of the final rule for mines 
with fewer than 20 employees is estimated to be $4.7 million, or 
approximately $22,000 per mine. This is equal to approximately 1.53 
percent of annual revenue.
    The Agency has provided, in the REA accompanying the final 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 1.53 percent of annual revenue, as 
noted above, MSHA has certified that the final rule will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small mining entities, as 
defined by SBA.

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act

A. Summary

    The information collection package for the final rule has been 
assigned OMB Control Number 1219-0145. The final rule contains 
information collection requirements (ICR) that will affect requirements 
in existing paperwork packages with OMB Control Numbers 1219-0009, 
1219-0054, 1219-0066, 1219-0073, and 1219-0088. The requirement for AMS 
operator training will modify ICR 1219-0009. The requirements for fire 
protection will modify ICR 1219-0054. The requirements that affect the 
information collected for approval of flame-resistant conveyor belts 
will modify ICR 1219-0066. The requirements to amend the mine map will 
modify ICR 1219-0073. The requirements that affect the information 
contained in the ventilation plan for underground coal mines will 
modify ICR 1219-0088.
    In the first year that the final rule is in effect, mine operators 
will incur 3,344 burden hours with related costs of approximately 
$240,000. Annually, starting in the second year that the final rule is 
in effect, mine operators will incur 2,350 burden hours with related 
costs of approximately $180,000. In addition, conveyor belt 
manufacturers will incur 540 burden hours and related costs of $27,000 
in the first year that the final rule is in effect; 270 burden hours 
and related costs of $13,500 in the second year that the final rule is 
in effect; and 170 burden hours and related

[[Page 80608]]

costs of $8,500 in the third year that the final rule is in effect.
    Final Sec.  14.7, which requires 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 final 
provision, see the REA accompanying the final rule. The REA is posted 
on MSHA's Web site at http://www.msha.gov/REGSINFO.HTM. A copy of the 
REA 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, OMB Control Number 1219-0145, 
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.
    Paperwork requirements contained in proposed Sec. Sec.  14.4(b) and 
75.350(b) received comments. A commenter stated that the actual 
formulation data required to be submitted to MSHA under proposed Sec.  
14.4(b) is more extensive than currently required and is not needed 
since approval is based solely on the BELT results. Another commenter 
stated that proposed Sec.  14.4(b)(4) was confusing. Other commenters 
also were concerned with proposed provision Sec.  75.350(b) that set 
out additional requirements to be included in the mine ventilation 
plan. These comments are addressed in earlier sections of this preamble 
and in the information collection package supporting this final rule 
(OMB control number 1219-0145).

VIII. Other Regulatory Considerations

A. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    MSHA has reviewed the final rule under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). MSHA has determined that the final 
rule will not include any Federal mandate that may result in increased 
expenditures by State, local, or tribal governments; and it will 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 final rule will 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 final rule will 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 final 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 final 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 final rule will have no adverse impact on children. 
Accordingly, Executive Order 13045 requires no further agency action or 
analysis.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    The final rule will not have ``federalism implications'' because it 
will not ``have substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.'' Accordingly, Executive Order 13132 requires no further 
agency action or analysis.

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

    The final rule will not have ``tribal implications'' because it 
will 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 final 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 final rule will result in yearly costs of 
approximately $51.5 million to the underground coal mining industry, 
relative to annual revenues of $14.0 billion in 2007, the final 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 final 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 final rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

IX. Final Rule

List of Subjects

30 CFR Part 6

    Testing and evaluation by independent laboratories and non-MSHA 
product safety standards, Mine safety and health.

30 CFR Part 14

    Approval of equipment, Mine safety and health, Underground mining.

30 CFR Part 18

    Electric motor-driven mine equipment and accessories, Mine safety 
and health.

30 CFR Part 48

    Training and retraining of miners, Mine safety and health.

30 CFR Part 75

    Mandatory safety standards--Underground coal mines, Mine safety and 
health, Recordkeeping.


[[Page 80609]]


    Dated: November 18, 2008.
Richard E. Stickler,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health.

0
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 amending 
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

0
1. The authority citation for part 6 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 30 U.S.C. 957.


0
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, or which in modified form provide at least the same degree of 
protection.
* * * * *

0
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
* * * * *

0
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, 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 extensions of approval submitted after 
December 31, 2008, 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 change to a product previously approved by MSHA 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.

    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. However, if MSHA receives a request from 
others to observe tests, the Agency will consider it.


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, 765 Technology Drive, 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 (ounces 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) The name, address, and telephone number of the applicant's 
representative responsible for answering any questions regarding the 
application.
    (c) Similar belts and extensions of approval may be evaluated for 
approval without testing using the BELT method if the following 
information is provided in the application:
    (1) 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 and inert 
ingredient by chemical,

[[Page 80610]]

generic, or trade name along with the total percentage of all flammable 
and inert ingredients.
    (2) Identification of any similar approved conveyor belt for which 
the applicant already holds an approval, and the formulation 
specifications for that belt if it has not previously been submitted to 
the Agency.
    (i) The MSHA assigned approval number of the conveyor belt that 
most closely resembles the new one; and
    (ii) An explanation of any changes from the existing approval.
    (d) 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.
    (e) 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.
    (f) 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.
    (g) 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) In order to assure that the finished conveyor belt will meet 
the flame-resistance test--
    (1) Flame test a sample of each batch, lot, or slab of conveyor 
belts; or
    (2) Flame test or inspect a sample of each batch or lot of the 
materials that contribute to the flame-resistance characteristic.
    (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 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 been 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. 
Representatives of the applicant and other persons agreed upon by MSHA 
and the applicant may be present during audit tests and evaluations. 
MSHA will also consider requests by others to observe tests.
    (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 to the safety or 
health of miners, an approval may be

[[Page 80611]]

immediately suspended without written notice of the Agency's intention 
to revoke.

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 Sec. Sec.  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[supreg], 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  \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

0
5. The authority citation for Part 18 continues to read as follows:

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


Sec.  18.1  [Amended]

0
6. Section 18.1 is amended by revising the phrase ``hoses and conveyor 
belts'' to read ``hoses''.


Sec.  18.2  [Amended]

0
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]

0
8. Section 18.6(a)(1) is amended by revising the phrase ``hose or 
conveyor belt'' to read ``hose''.
0
9. Section 18.6(c) is removed and reserved.
0
10. Section 18.6(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''.

[[Page 80612]]

Sec.  18.9  [Amended]

0
11. Section 18.9(a) is amended by revising the phrase ``hose or 
conveyor belt'' to read ``hose''.


Sec.  18.65  [Amended]

0
12. Section 18.65 is amended by revising the section heading 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

0
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

0
14. Amend Sec.  48.27 to revise the first sentence in paragraph (a) 
introductory text 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

0
15. The authority citation for Part 75 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811.


0
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

0
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.
* * * * *

0
18. In Sec.  75.350, paragraphs (a)(2), (b) introductory text, (b)(3), 
and (d)(1) are revised, and (b)(7) and (b)(8) are added to read as 
follows:


Sec.  75.350  Belt air course ventilation.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (2) Effective December 31, 2009, the air velocity in the belt entry 
must be at least 50 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. 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 
as 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 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 that a lesser distance be approved by the district 
manager in the mine ventilation plan based on mine specific conditions;
* * * * *

0
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. In the event of an emergency, the sole responsibility of the 
AMS operator shall be to respond to the emergency.
* * * * *
    (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;

[[Page 80613]]

    (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 one year by the mine operator.
* * * * *

0
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.

0
21. Section 75.371 is amended by revising paragraphs (jj), (mm), (nn), 
and by adding paragraph (yy) 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 sensor, 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 the pressure differential cannot be 
maintained from the primary escapeway to the belt entry.

0
22. Section 75.380 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(7)(v) and (vi) 
and (f)(1) and adding paragraph (d)(7)(vii) to read as follows:


Sec.  75.380  Escapeways; bituminous and lignite mines.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (7) * * *
    (v) Equipped with one directional indicator cone securely attached 
to the lifeline, signifying the route of escape, placed at intervals 
not exceeding 100 feet. Cones shall be installed so that the tapered 
section points inby;
    (vi) Equipped with one sphere securely attached to the lifeline at 
each intersection where personnel doors are installed in adjacent 
crosscuts;
    (vii) Equipped with two securely attached cones, installed 
consecutively with the tapered section pointing inby, to signify an 
attached branch line is immediately ahead.
    (A) A branch line leading from the lifeline to an SCSR cache will 
be marked with four cones with the base sections in contact to form two 
diamond shapes. The cones must be placed within reach of the lifeline.
    (B) A branch line leading from the lifeline to a refuge alternative 
will be marked with a rigid spiraled coil at least eight inches in 
length. The spiraled coil must be placed within reach of the lifeline 
(see Illustration 1 below).

[[Page 80614]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31DE08.001

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (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.
* * * * *

0
23. Section 75.381 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(5)(v) and (vi) 
and (e), and adding paragraph (c)(5)(vii) to read as follows:


Sec.  75.381  Escapeways; anthracite mines.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
* * * * *
    (5) * * *
* * * * *
    (v) Equipped with one directional indicator cone securely attached 
to the lifeline, signifying the route of escape, placed at intervals 
not exceeding 100 feet. Cones shall be installed so that the tapered 
section points inby;
    (vi) Equipped with one sphere securely attached to the lifeline at 
each intersection where personnel doors are installed in adjacent 
crosscuts;
    (vii) Equipped with two securely attached cones, installed 
consecutively with the tapered section pointing inby, to signify an 
attached branch line is immediately ahead.
    (A) A branch line leading from the lifeline to an SCSR cache will 
be marked with four cones with the base sections in contact to form two 
diamond shapes. The cones must be placed within reach of the lifeline.
    (B) A branch line leading from the lifeline to a refuge alternative 
will be marked with a rigid spiraled coil at least eight inches in 
length. The spiraled coil must be placed within reach of the lifeline.
* * * * *
    (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

0
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 December 31, 2009, 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

[[Page 80615]]

exceed 1,000 feet. Where air velocities are less than 50 feet per 
minute, spacing must not exceed 350 feet; and
    (iv) The mine operator shall indicate the locations of all carbon 
monoxide sensors on the mine maps required by Sec. Sec.  75.1200 and 
75.1505 of this part.
    (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 and put in 
operation within 24 production shift hours. When sensors of the kind 
described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section are used, they 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.
* * * * *

0
25. The section heading and paragraph (a) of Sec.  75.1103-5 are 
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 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. 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.

0
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.

0
27. Section 75.1103-8 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  75.1103-8  Automatic fire sensor and warning device systems; 
examination 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. Examination 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 in accordance with the 
manufacturer's calibration instructions at intervals not to exceed 31 
days. A record of the

[[Page 80616]]

sensor calibrations shall be maintained by the operator and kept for a 
period of one year.

0
28. Section 75.1103-10 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  75.1103-10  Fire suppression systems; additional requirements.

    For each conveyor belt flight exceeding 2,000 feet in length, where 
the average air velocity along the belt haulage entry exceeds 100 feet 
per minute, an additional cache of the materials specified in Sec.  
75.1103-9(a)(1), (2), and (3) shall be provided. The additional cache 
may be stored at the locations specified in Sec.  75.1103-9(a), or at 
some other strategic location readily accessible to the conveyor belt 
flight.

0
29. Section 75.1108 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  75.1108  Approved conveyor belts.

    (a) Until December 31, 2009 conveyor belts placed in service in 
underground coal mines shall be:
    (1) Approved under Part 14; or
    (2) Accepted under Part 18.
    (b) Effective December 31, 2009 conveyor belts placed in service in 
underground coal mines shall be approved under Part 14. If MSHA 
determines that Part 14 approved belt is not available, the Agency will 
consider an extension of the effective date.
    (c) Effective December 31, 2018 all conveyor belts used in 
underground coal mines shall be approved under Part 14.

0
30. Remove Sec.  75.1108-1.

Subpart R--Miscellaneous

0
31. Section 75.1731 is added to read as follows:


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

    (a) Damaged rollers, or other damaged belt conveyor components, 
which pose a fire hazard must be immediately repaired or replaced. All 
other damaged rollers, or other damaged belt conveyor components, must 
be repaired or replaced.
    (b) Conveyor belts must be properly aligned to prevent the moving 
belt from rubbing against the structure or components.
    (c) Materials shall not be allowed in the belt conveyor entry where 
the material may contribute to a frictional heating hazard.
    (d) Splicing of any approved conveyor belt must maintain flame-
resistant properties of the belt.

[FR Doc. E8-30639 Filed 12-30-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-43-P