[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 119 (Thursday, June 19, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35026-35057]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-13631]
[[Page 35025]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Labor
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mine Safety and Health Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
30 CFR Parts 6, 14, 18 et al.
Safety Standards Regarding the Recommendations of the Technical Study
Panel on the Utilization of Belt Air and the Composition and Fire
Retardant Properties of Belt Materials in Underground Coal Mining;
Conveyor Belt Combustion Toxicity and Smoke Density; Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 119 / Thursday, June 19, 2008 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 35026]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration
30 CFR Parts 6, 14, 18, 48, and 75
RIN 1219-AB59
Safety Standards Regarding the Recommendations of the Technical
Study Panel on the Utilization of Belt Air and the Composition and Fire
Retardant Properties of Belt Materials in Underground Coal Mining
AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Proposed Rule, notice of public hearings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposal addresses the recommendations of the Technical
Study Panel (Panel) on the Utilization of Belt Air and the Composition
and Fire Retardant Properties of Belt Materials in Underground Coal
Mining. Section 11 of the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response
(MINER) Act of 2006 required that this Panel be established. MSHA
proposes new standards for: Conveyor belt flammability; qualifying
Atmospheric Monitoring System operators; levels of methane and
respirable dust in belt entries; airlocks between air courses; minimum
and maximum air velocities; approval for the use of air from the belt
entry to ventilate working sections; monitoring and remotely closing
point-feed regulators; smoke sensors; standardized tactile signals on
lifelines; replacing point-type heat sensors with carbon monoxide
sensors; and belt conveyor and belt entry maintenance. Consistent with
the MINER Act, the proposal includes MSHA's response to the Panel's
report.
DATES: All comments must be received by midnight eastern standard time
on September 8, 2008. MSHA will hold four public hearings on August 19,
August 21, August 26, and August 28, 2008. Details about the public
hearings are in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
ADDRESSES: Comments must be clearly identified with ``RIN 1219-AB59''
and may be sent to MSHA by any of the following methods:
(1) Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
(2) Electronic mail: [email protected]. Include ``RIN 1219-
AB59'' in the subject line of the message.
(3) Facsimile: (202) 693-9441. Include ``RIN 1219-AB59'' in the
subject.
(4) Regular Mail: MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and
Variances, 1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia 22209-
3939.
(5) Hand Delivery or Courier: MSHA, Office of Standards,
Regulations, and Variances, 1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2350, Arlington,
Virginia 22209-3939. Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the 21st
floor.
Comments can be accessed electronically at http://www.msha.gov
under the ``Rules and Regs'' link. MSHA will post all comments on the
Internet without change, including any personal information provided.
Comments may also be reviewed at the Office of Standards, Regulations,
and Variances, 1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia. Sign
in at the receptionist's desk on the 21st floor.
MSHA maintains a listserve that enables subscribers to receive e-
mail notification when rulemaking documents are published in the
Federal Register. To subscribe to the listserve, go to http://www.msha.gov/subscriptions/subscribe.aspx.
Information Collection Requirements: Comments concerning the
information collection requirements must be clearly identified by ``RIN
1219-AB59'' as comments on the information collection requirements and
sent to both the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and MSHA.
Comments to OMB may be sent by mail addressed to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC
20503, Attn: Desk Officer for MSHA. Comments to MSHA may be transmitted
either electronically to [email protected], by facsimile to (202)
693-9441, or by regular mail, hand delivery, or courier to MSHA, Office
of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2350,
Arlington, Virginia 22209-3939.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia W. Silvey, Director, Office
of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, 1100 Wilson Blvd., Room
2350, Arlington, Virginia 22209-3939, [email protected] (e-mail),
(202) 693-9440 (voice), or (202) 693-9441 (telefax).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The outline of this proposed rule is as
follows:
I. Public Hearings
II. Introduction
III. Section-by-Section Analysis
A. Flame-Resistant Conveyor Belt
1. General
2. Discussion of Proposed Rule
B. Fire Prevention and Detection and Approval of the Use of Air
from the Belt Entry to Ventilate Working Sections
1. General
2. Discussion of Proposed Rule
IV. Executive Order 12866
A. Population-at-Risk
B. Benefits
C. Compliance Costs
V. Feasibility
A. Technological Feasibility
B. Economic Feasibility
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)
A. Definition of a Small Mine
B. Factual Basis for Certification
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
A. Summary
B. Procedural Details
VIII. Other Regulatory Considerations
A. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
B. Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999:
Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families
C. Executive Order 12630: Government Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights
D. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
E. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. Executive Order 13272: Proper Consideration of Small Entities
in Agency Rulemaking
IX. Proposed Rule
I. Public Hearings
MSHA will hold four public hearings on the proposed rule. These
public hearings will begin at 9 a.m. and end after the last speaker
speaks, and in any event not later than 5 p.m., on the following dates
at the locations indicated:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Location Contact information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 19, 2008......................... Salt Lake City, UT 84101........
August 21, 2008......................... Hilton Suites Lexington Green, (859) 271-4000
245 Lexington Green Circle,
Lexington, KY 40503.
[[Page 35027]]
August 26, 2008......................... Embassy Suites Charleston, 300 (304) 347-8700
Court St., Charleston, WV 25301.
August 28, 2008......................... Sheraton Birmingham, 2101 (205) 324-5000
Richard Arrington Jr. Blvd.,
Birmingham, AL 35203.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The hearings will begin with an opening statement from MSHA,
followed by an opportunity for members of the public to make oral
presentations. Requests to speak at a hearing should be made at least 5
days prior to the hearing date. Requests to speak may be made by
telephone (202-693-9440), facsimile (202-693-9441), or mail (MSHA,
Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard,
Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia 22209-3939).
Any unallocated time at the end of each hearing will be made
available to persons making same-day requests to speak. Speakers will
speak in the order that they sign in at the hearing. At the discretion
of the presiding official, the time allocated to each speaker for their
presentation may be limited. Speakers and other attendees may also
present information to the MSHA panel for inclusion in the rulemaking
record.
The hearings will be conducted in an informal manner. The hearing
panel may ask questions of speakers. Formal rules of evidence or cross
examination will not apply. The presiding official may exercise
discretion to assure the orderly progress of the hearing and meeting
and may exclude irrelevant or unduly repetitious material and
questions. A verbatim transcript of the proceedings will be made a part
of the rulemaking record. Copies of the transcript will be available to
the public. The transcript will also be available on MSHA's Home Page
at http://www.msha.gov, under Statutory and Regulatory Information.
MSHA will accept post-hearing written comments and other
appropriate data for the record from any interested party, including
those not presenting oral statements. Written comments will be included
in the rulemaking record until the close of the comment period. MSHA
will make transcripts of the hearings, post them on MSHA's Web site
http://www.msha.gov, and include them in the rulemaking record.
II. Introduction
Section 11 of the MINER Act established the Technical Study Panel
to provide an independent scientific and engineering review, and issue
a report with recommendations regarding the use of air from the belt
entry to ventilate working sections and the composition and fire
retardant properties of belt materials in underground coal mining. The
Secretary of Labor chartered the Panel on December 22, 2006 (71 FR
77069).
The Panel held five public meetings in Washington, DC; Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania; Salt Lake City, Utah; Birmingham, Alabama; and Reston,
Virginia. The Panel solicited and reviewed comments from the mining
community at the public meetings, and reviewed extensive material
provided primarily by MSHA and the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH). In addition, technical experts in mine
ventilation, conveyor belt composition, and other pertinent areas
submitted detailed information and made presentations to the Panel.
Transcripts of the meetings, including technical and scientific
material, are in the official record, and on MSHA's Web site.
In conjunction with the public meetings in Utah and Alabama, Panel
members visited underground coal mines to observe conditions at mines
that use air from the belt entry to ventilate working sections.
The Panel deliberated over a nine-month period and conducted its
final public meeting on September 17-19, 2007, to discuss
recommendations for its report. The Panel passed 20 recommendations as
described below by a unanimous vote:
Recommendation number 1--Conveyor Belt Flammability
Testing and Approval;
Recommendation number 2--Other Belt Tests;
Recommendation number 3--Improved Fire Resistance
Standards for all Underground Coal Mines;
Recommendation number 4--Coordinating Belt Testing with
Other Countries;
Recommendation number 5--Belt entry and conveyor belt
maintenance;
Recommendation number 6--Special requirements for the use
of belt air;
Recommendation number 7--Belt air approval recommendation;
Recommendation number 8--Discontinuing point-type heat
sensors;
Recommendation number 9--Smoke sensors;
Recommendation number 10--Use of diesel-discriminating
sensors;
Recommendation number 11--Review of AMS records;
Recommendation number 12--AMS operator training
certification;
Recommendation number 13--Minimum and maximum air
velocities;
Recommendation number 14--Escapeways and leakage;
Recommendation number 15--Lifelines;
Recommendation number 16--Point-feeding;
Recommendation number 17--Respirable dust;
Recommendation number 18--Mine methane;
Recommendation number 19--Inspections; and
Recommendation number 20--Research.
The Panel issued its report on December 20, 2007. A copy of this
report is available on MSHA's Web site at http://www.msha.gov.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-161,
December 26, 2007) requires the Secretary to propose regulations
consistent with the recommendations of the Technical Study Panel, to
require that:
[i]n any coal mine * * * belt haulage entries not be used to
ventilate active working places without prior approval from the
Assistant Secretary. Further, a mine ventilation plan incorporating
the use of air coursed through belt haulage entries to ventilate
active working places shall not be approved until the Assistant
Secretary has reviewed the elements of the plan related to the use
of belt air and has determined that the plan at all times affords at
least the same measure of protection where belt haulage entries are
not used to ventilate working places.
Based on the Panel's recommendations, MSHA is proposing new and
revised safety standards for underground coal mines concerning 15 of
the 20 recommendations which require rulemaking. The remaining
recommendations would not require rulemaking.
This proposal is organized in two parts under Part III below. Part
III (A) includes proposed requirements for improved flame-resistant
conveyor belts. Part III (B) includes proposed requirements for fire
prevention and detection and approval of the use of air from the belt
entry to ventilate working sections.
MSHA is also publishing a Request for Information in the Federal
Register for public comment on criteria for
[[Page 35028]]
testing the toxicity and density of smoke produced from burning
conveyor belt or similar materials.
III. Section-By-Section Analysis
A. Flame-Resistant Conveyor Belt
1. General
(a) This proposal addresses Panel Recommendation No. 1--Conveyor
Belt Flammability Testing and Approval, and Recommendation No. 3--
Improved Fire Resistance Standards for All Underground Coal Mines. To
address Panel Recommendation No. 2--Other belt tests, MSHA is
evaluating the drum friction test to determine if it could complement
the Belt Evaluation Laboratory Test method. This evaluation will occur
over a two-year period, consistent with the Panel's recommendation.
The Panel recommended that MSHA revise and repropose the Agency's
1992 proposed rule on the ``Requirements for Approval of Flame-
Resistant Conveyor Belts.'' The Panel also recommended that MSHA
require the use of improved flame-resistant conveyor belts in all
underground coal mines. Consistent with the Panel's recommendations,
this proposal would require that conveyor belts in underground coal
mines meet the Agency's proposed Belt Evaluation Laboratory Test
(BELT). In addition, this proposal incorporates changes in MSHA's
approval, quality assurance, and audit procedures.
(b) Rulemaking Background
Existing Sec. 75.1108 requires underground coal mine operators to
use only MSHA-approved, flame-resistant conveyor belts meeting the
specifications of Part 18. All existing underground conveyor belts are
accepted under Schedule 2G. This is a small-scale flame test,
originated by the former Bureau of Mines of the Department of the
Interior (Bureau), and conducted in a cubicle chamber, using four six-
inch (15.2 cm) long by one half-inch (1.3 cm) wide belt samples. Each
sample is subjected to the flame from a small natural gas burner for
one minute.
In the late 1980s, MSHA and the Bureau developed a flame-resistance
test called the Belt Evaluation Laboratory Test (BELT) that measures
resistance to flame propagation rather than burn time. The BELT method
consists of a mid-scale laboratory apparatus. Three samples of conveyer
belt, 60 inches (152.4 cm) long and nine inches (22.9 cm) wide are
tested. Flame from a natural gas impinged jet burner is applied to the
test sample for five minutes.
On January 17, 1989, MSHA announced a public meeting to discuss the
BELT method. Later that year, MSHA released a study on belt entry
ventilation. In 1992, MSHA issued a Belt Air Advisory Committee Report.
Both of these reports emphasized the need for an improved flame-
resistance test that would result in reduced flame propagation of
conveyor belts.
On December 24, 1992, MSHA published a proposal to revise the
existing regulation for testing and acceptance of conveyor belts (53 FR
61524). On July 15, 2002, the Agency withdrew the proposal (67 FR
46431). This proposed rule would establish the BELT method for the
approval of flame-resistant conveyer belts in underground coal mines
and require that improved conveyor belts be used.
(c) Use of Conveyor Belts in Underground Coal Mines and Fire History
Conveyor belts used in underground coal mines generally consist of
rubber-textile compositions, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and combinations
of rubber covers and solid woven carcass. Rubber belts constructed with
steel cords or cable are also used. Typical rubber compounds are
styrene-butadiene (SBR), chloroprene (CR), polybutadiene (BR) and
copolymer acrylonitrile-butadiene (NBR). The carcass of the conveyor
belts may be constructed of layered ply materials such as polyester and
nylon or solid woven material impregnated with PVC. The amount of plies
can range from 2 to 8 in rubber belts. Belt thickness ranges from about
\3/8\-inch to over 1-inch and belt width ranges from 36-inches to 96-
inches.
The average conveyor belt length for both conveyance and return is:
9,894 feet (3,016 meters) in an average small underground coal mine
with 1-19 employees; 51,964 feet (15,839 meters) in an average medium-
sized mine with between 20 and 500 employees; and 199,159 feet (60,704
meters) in an average large mine with over 500 employees.
MSHA has reviewed fire incident data for conveyor belt entries in
underground coal mines for the period 1980-2007. These data show that
fires in conveyor belt entries represent about 15 to 20 percent of all
underground coal mine fires. Friction at the belt drive and along the
belt was the ignition source for 36 percent of the 65 conveyor belt
fires reported. Other sources of belt fires included electrical (13%);
hot rollers and bearings (10%); cutting and welding (8%); diesel and
hydraulic (3%); and cause undetermined (30%). Data reveal that fires
have burned substantial lengths of conveyor belt, as much as 2,000 feet
(600 meters). Regardless of the ignition source, once a fire starts, a
belt that has poor flame resistance will spread flames along exposed
surfaces and eventually ignite other combustibles in the entry,
including coal.
European efforts to seek improvements in both flame-resistant
conveyor belt properties and testing protocols began in the early
1950s. Similar efforts in the United States were initiated around the
same time by the Bureau. The Bureau developed a Schedule 28 (November
9, 1955) for the acceptance of fire-resistant conveyor belts and
subsequently amended Schedule 28 (December 9, 1957). Schedule 28
contained a small-scale flame test for acceptance of fire-resistant
conveyor belt. Schedule 28 was consolidated into Schedule 2G (30 CFR
Part 18) on March 19, 1968. Existing 30 CFR Part 18.65 establishes the
small-scale test for the acceptance of fire resistant conveyor belt.
In the 1980s, MSHA began developing a flame-resistance test for
conveyor belts that would result in a higher level of flame resistance
than the ``2G'' test. A large-scale test facility was constructed at
the Lake Lynn Laboratory by the Bureau and MSHA. The large scale tests
showed the effect of air flow on belt flammability. These tests were
conducted over a wide range of air velocities. MSHA used the large-
scale flammability test data to develop the BELT, a laboratory-scale
flame resistance test.
MSHA developed the new BELT method to improve the fire resistant
capability of belt material, and thereby greatly limit flame
propagation. The BELT measures the length of burned belt on the test
sample. The BELT is easy to perform, economical, and correlates well
with large-scale tests. MSHA and the Bureau have performed extensive
testing of the BELT method. Test results over a 34-month period, based
on samples of the belt material, reveal that the BELT method is highly
precise and accurate. Samples from the same belt pass the existing
Schedule 2G Test, but fail under the new BELT.
2. Discussion of Proposed Rule
This proposal would establish a new Part 14 that would include
approval requirements for flame-resistant conveyor belt. It would
require that improved flame-resistant conveyor belts be used in all
underground coal mines. The proposal would also make technical and
conforming changes to Parts 6 and 18.
[[Page 35029]]
Part 14--Approval of Conveyor Belts in Underground Coal Mines
Subpart A--General
Proposed Sec. 14.1 is derived from existing Sec. 18.1. Part 14
would establish new flame resistance requirements for MSHA approval of
conveyor belts for use in underground coal mines. It would also allow
applicants for approval, approval holders and those seeking extensions
a one year phase-in period to continue to use the acceptance criteria
in existing Part 18. During this period, approval holders could apply
for a Part 18 acceptance or a Part 14 approval. The Agency specifically
solicits comments on the impact of the one year transition period on
inventories and associated costs to approval holders.
Proposed Sec. 14.2 would establish definitions applicable to
approval of conveyor belts. The proposed definitions are as follows.
``Applicant'', derived from existing Sec. Sec. 6.2 and 7.2, would
refer to an individual or organization that manufactures or controls
the production of a conveyor belt and who applies to MSHA for approval.
``Approval'', derived from existing Sec. 7.2, would replace the
term ``acceptance'' as defined in existing Sec. 18.2. An approval,
which would be issued by MSHA, would show that a conveyor belt has met
the requirements of this Part, and would authorize a marking
identifying the belt as approved. This is consistent with other MSHA
approval regulations which define `approved' as the general term which
indicates that a product has met MSHA's technical requirements.
``Extension of approval'', derived from existing Sec. 7.2, would
be defined as a document issued by MSHA which states that a change to a
conveyor belt previously approved by MSHA continues to meet the
requirements of this Part. An extension of approval would authorize the
continued use of the approval marking after the appropriate extension
number has been added.
``Flame-retardant ingredient'' would be a new term, and means
material that inhibits ignition or flame propagation.
``Flammable ingredient'', would be a new term and would mean
material that is capable of combustion.
``Inert ingredient'', a new term, would mean a material that does
not contribute to combustion.
``Post-approval product audit'', derived from existing Sec. 7.2,
would be an examination and testing of an approved conveyor belt sample
to determine if it meets the technical requirements of its approval,
and has continued to be manufactured as approved.
``Similar conveyor belt'', would be a new definition, and would
apply to a conveyor belt that shares the same cover compound, general
carcass construction, and fabric type as another approved conveyor
belt. This definition would assist applicants in providing the
appropriate information with their applications for approval. Similar
belts may be considered as part of a given family, and approved under
the same approval number.
Proposed Sec. 14.3, derived from Sec. 18.9(a), would limit the
individuals who may be present during testing and evaluation to MSHA,
representatives of the applicant, and other persons as agreed upon by
MSHA and the applicant. This provision is intended to protect
proprietary information. It is consistent with other MSHA approval
regulations.
Proposed Sec. 14.4, derived from Sec. Sec. 7.3 and 18.6, would
require applicants to follow certain procedures to obtain approval, or
an extension of an approval, for a flame-resistant conveyor belt. This
proposal would organize the application procedures into two actions:
approval and an extension of an approval.
When requesting approval, proposed Sec. 14.4 would require that
the applicant submit all information necessary to properly evaluate a
conveyor belt.
Proposed paragraph (a), based on existing Sec. Sec. 7.3(a) and
18.6(a), would specify how and where an applicant would file for MSHA
approval or extension. This procedure includes mail, online, and fax
transmission.
Proposed Sec. 14.4(b) would contain information the applicant
would need to submit concerning the identification and construction of
a conveyor belt. Each application would need to include this
information, except any information submitted in a prior approval
application need not be resubmitted. An application would address
either a single specific construction, or multiple-ply construction
consisting of the same cover compound and carcass construction varying
only by the number of plies and fabric weight. In addition, if approval
of multiple-ply construction is requested, the minimum and maximum
number of plies both with thinnest-specified cover thickness and
heaviest-specified fabric weight must be tested. These proposed
requirements for conveyor belt applications are based on existing Sec.
18.6(c).
Proposed Sec. 14.4(b)(1) would require a technical description of
the conveyor belt. This information would include: Trade name
(specification or code numbers) or identification number; cover
compound type and designation number; belt thickness and thickness of
top and bottom covers; presence and type of skim coat; presence and
type of friction coat; carcass construction and fabric; presence and
type of breaker or floated plies; and the number, type, and size of
cords or fabric for metal cord belts.
Proposed paragraph Sec. 14.4(b)(2) would require information on
the type of material comprising the conveyor belt (for example,
styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), chloroprene,
composite, or steel cable). Formulation information on the compounds in
the Conveyor belt could be shown by specifying each: (1) Ingredient by
its chemical name along with its percentage (weight) and tolerance or
percentage range; or (2) flame-retardant ingredient by its chemical or
generic name with its percentage and tolerance or percentage range, or
its minimum percent. The applicant would need to list each flammable
ingredient by chemical, generic, or trade name along with the total
percentage of all flammable ingredients. In addition, the applicant
would need to list each inert ingredient by chemical, generic, or trade
name along with the total percentage of all inert ingredients.
Proposed Sec. 14.4(b)(3) would require that the applicant submit,
as part of the application, the name, address, and telephone number of
the applicant's representative responsible for answering any questions
regarding the application. The applicant may also wish to include the
representative's electronic mail (e-mail) address.
Proposed Sec. 14.4(b)(4) would require that an application for
approval of a conveyor belt similar to a previously approved conveyor
belt include an explanation of any changes from the existing approval,
along with the approval number of the belt being changed. Documentation
which is listed in the prior approval would not need to be resubmitted.
MSHA's evaluation of whether a belt is similar will determine if
the application has to be processed as an extension of approval or a
new approval. For example, if a manufacturer submits a 5-ply belt that
is identical, except in number of plies, to a family of belts with 3,
4, and 6 plies that has been previously approved, MSHA would likely
grant an extension of approval to the 5-ply belt without additional
testing.
After receipt of an approval, if the applicant requests an
extension of
[[Page 35030]]
approval for the original conveyor belt, the applicant would not be
required to resubmit documentation duplicative of previously submitted
information. Similarly, only information related to changes in the
previously approved conveyor belt would be required.
Proposed Sec. 14.4(c) would require that any changes to the
documentation of technical requirements of a previously approved flame-
resistant conveyor belt must be approved by MSHA prior to implementing
the change. This requirement would avoid unauthorized changes being
made that could affect the flame-resistant properties of the conveyor
belt.
Proposed Sec. 14.4(c)(1) would require that each application for
an extension of approval include the MSHA-assigned approval number of
the conveyor belt which most closely resembles the new one. Proposed
Sec. 14.4(c)(2) would require that the application contain a
description of any changes from the existing approval. This information
would include the MSHA-assigned approval number for the conveyor belt
for which the extension is sought; and a description of the proposed
change to the conveyor belt. Proposed Sec. 14.4(c)(3) would require
the name, address, and telephone number of the applicant's
representative responsible for answering any questions regarding the
application. The applicant should also include the representative's e-
mail address.
Proposed Sec. 14.4(d) would permit MSHA to make a determination if
additional information, samples, and testing are needed to evaluate the
application. Additional samples may be requested by MSHA as a result of
erroneous test results. This provision would also allow a statement by
an applicant to explain reasons why flame testing of a specific
conveyor belt may not be necessary.
Proposed Sec. 14.4(e), based on existing Sec. 18.6(a)(3), would
permit an applicant to request testing and evaluation using non-MSHA
product safety standards that have been determined by the Agency to
provide at least the same degree of protection as the MSHA product
approval requirements under this Part. This proposed paragraph would
permit MSHA to approve products using the equivalent program authorized
in Sec. 6.20, entitled ``MSHA acceptance of equivalent non-MSHA
product safety standards.''
Proposed Sec. 14.4(f), consistent with existing Sec. 18.6(a),
would inform applicants that fees for services will be charged in
accordance with Part 5, entitled: Fee for Testing, Evaluation, and
Approval of Mining Products.
Proposed Sec. 14.5 is new and would require, upon request by MSHA,
the submission of three pre-cut, unrolled, flat samples of conveyor
belt, 60 inches (152.4 cm) long by 9 inches (22.9 cm) wide, for flame
testing. The proposed laboratory-scale test for flame resistance
requires testing of three samples to determine acceptable performance.
The proposal would require pre-cut and unrolled flat samples which can
be mounted for testing. Samples submitted in an uncut, rolled (coiled)
state, require additional time to be cut and flattened for subsequent
mounting. MSHA uses the word ``pre-cut'' to inform the applicant that
the samples would need to be sent to MSHA already cut to the required
sample size.
Curling of samples can cause erroneous test results and has, at
times, presented a problem during testing. MSHA has determined that
most of this curling effect results from the conveyor belts having a
``pre-set'' from being rolled prior to testing. These proposed
requirements, along with the proposed required preconditioning of
samples serve to minimize curling of samples. The requirement to submit
samples for testing is derived from existing Sec. 18.6(i). However,
the requirement for the number and dimension of samples is specific to
the BELT method.
Proposed Sec. 14.6, based on existing Sec. 18.10, would address
requirements related to the approval. Proposed Sec. 14.6(a), would
require that MSHA issue a notice of approval upon the successful
completion of the Agency's investigation. The notice of approval would
be accompanied by a list of documentation and related material,
covering the details of design and construction of the conveyor belt
upon which the approval is based. If approval is denied, MSHA will
notify the applicant of the reasons for the denial.
Proposed Sec. 14.6(b), based on existing Sec. 18.10(c), would
require that an applicant not advertise or otherwise represent a
conveyor belt as approved until MSHA's notice of approval is received.
To do otherwise would be a violation of MSHA standards and regulations.
Proposed Sec. 14.7, based on existing Sec. Sec. 7.6 and 18.11(c),
would provide for marking of approved conveyor belts and retention of
initial sales records.
Proposed Sec. 14.7(a) would specify that approved conveyor belts
be marketed only under the name specified in the approval.
Proposed Sec. 14.7(b), based on Sec. 18.65(f), would require
conveyor belts to be legibly and permanently marked with the assigned
MSHA approval number for the service life of the product. The letters
and numbers of the approval marking would need to be at least \1/2\
inch in size. Also, the approval marking would have to be placed at
intervals not to exceed 60 feet (18.3 meters) and repeated at least
once every foot (30.5 centimeters) across the width of the belt. MSHA
proposes this marking method since a conveyor belt's edges can wear as
it passes along the conveyor framework, causing fraying. Fraying of
conveyor belts, which may occur during normal use, can cause the
approval markings on belts to become illegible or worn. Relocating the
markings from the edge of the belt to across its width would permit
identification of the conveyor belt for a longer time. This method
would also enable better identification of conveyor belts cut from
larger to smaller widths, or where worn edges are trimmed.
Proposed Sec. 14.7(c) would provide that where the construction of
a conveyor belt does not permit marking as prescribed in proposed
paragraph (b), other permanent marking may be accepted by MSHA. This
proposed provision would allow alternatives for marking conveyor belts.
Proposed Sec. 14.7(d) is new, and would require that the applicant
maintain sales records for 5 years following the initial sale of any
approved conveyor belt. Information needed on initial sales would be:
The sale date, the customer name and address, and the belt
identification on a slab, batch or lot basis. MSHA proposes a five-year
retention period to conform to MSHA's audit cycle. This proposed time-
frame period would also cover the period in which any potentially
hazardous defects might be found.
MSHA requests comments on the 5-year retention period for retaining
sales records.
The proposal does not specify the format in which the record has to
be maintained. MSHA believes that this recordkeeping provision would
impose a minimal burden because most manufacturers will use existing
records to fulfill this requirement.
Proposed Sec. 14.8 would include requirements for a manufacturer's
ongoing quality assurance program. MSHA believes testing is essential
to maintain the high level of flame resistance required for conveyor
belts in underground coal mines. The specific provisions are new for
conveyor belts, they are derived from existing Sec. 7.7.
Proposed Sec. 14.8(a) would require approval holders to perform a
flammability evaluation on a sample of: (1) Each batch, lot, or slab of
conveyor belts; or (2) inspect or test a sample of each batch or lot of
the materials that
[[Page 35031]]
contribute to the flame-resistance characteristic. This will assure
that the finished conveyor belt slab continues to meet the test for
flame resistance.
Proposed Sec. 14.8(b) would require that instruments used for the
quality assurance inspection and testing be calibrated according to the
instrument manufacturer's specifications. Under the proposal,
instruments must be calibrated using calibration standards set by the
National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of
Commerce or other nationally or internationally recognized standards.
The proposal also would require that the instruments used be accurate
to at least one significant figure beyond the desired accuracy. This
calibration sequence is consistent with the procedure under existing
Sec. 7.7.
Proposed Sec. 14.8(c) would require that approval holders control
all production to assure that the conveyor belt is continuously
manufactured as approved. This proposal would require each approval
holder to implement procedures to assure that the product conforms to
the approval specifications.
Proposed Sec. 14.8(d) would require approval holders to
immediately notify the MSHA Approval and Certification Center of any
information that a conveyor belt has been distributed which does not
meet the specifications of the approval. Notification can be by
telephone, e-mail, or facsimile transmission. The notification must
include a description of the nature and extent of the problem, the
locations where the conveyor belt has been distributed, and the
approval holder's plans for corrective action. Corrective action may
include recalling the conveyor belt or restricting its use pending
resolution of the defect.
Proposed Sec. 14.9, derived from existing Sec. 18.9, would
address the disclosure of information on conveyor belts tested and
evaluated under part 14. Under the proposal, MSHA intends to treat
information on product material, specifications, and processes as
potentially protectable under exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA). Exemption 4 exempts from disclosure ``trade secrets and
commercial or financial information'' obtained from an outside source
and ``privileged or confidential.'' 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). Under the
Department's regulations at 29 CFR 70.26, Business information, MSHA
would notify the applicant of any FOIA request seeking information
submitted by the applicant under this proposal. The applicant then
would have a reasonable period of time in which to object to
disclosure. An objecting applicant must submit a ``detailed written
statement'' showing ``why the information is a trade secret or
commercial or financial information that is privileged or
confidential.'' 29 CFR 70.26(e). MSHA would consider the applicant's
objections in deciding whether to disclose the information. If MSHA
determines that the FOIA requires disclosure over the applicant's
objections, MSHA would notify the applicant of the documents to be
disclosed prior to the disclosure date (unless MSHA learns that the
material already has been made public lawfully). 29 CFR 70.26(f), (g).
Under 29 CFR 70.26(b), when submitting documents, applicants should
identify the documents they wish to protect by marking them (such as
stamping each page ``Confidential''). MSHA notes that it has no
authority under the FOIA to withhold applicant documents requested by a
Congressional oversight committee.
Proposed Sec. 14.10, derived from existing Sec. Sec. 6.10 and
7.8, would provide a mechanism for MSHA to periodically audit approved
conveyor belts.
Proposed Sec. 14.10(a) would provide that approved conveyor belts
would be subject to periodic audits by MSHA to determine conformity
with the technical requirements upon which the approval was based. MSHA
would select representative conveyor belts to be audited. Upon request
to MSHA, the approval holder may obtain any final audit report.
Proposed Sec. 14.10(b) would require that approval holders make
conveyor belts available to MSHA, at no cost, for audit upon request.
Three samples sized according to Sec. 14.5 would be required. Audits
may be conducted no more than once a year, except for cause. The
approval holder may observe any tests conducted during the audit.
Proposed Sec. 14.10(c) would require manufacturers to allow MSHA
to conduct an audit for cause at any time the Agency believes that an
approved product is not in compliance with the technical requirements
of the approval. Audits would allow MSHA to determine whether products
are being manufactured as approved. MSHA would select the product, and
may, if necessary, obtain products from sources other than the
manufacturer such as distributors or wholesalers.
In determining which products to audit, MSHA will consider a
variety of factors such as whether the manufacturer has previously
produced the product or similar products, whether the product is new or
part of a new product line, or whether the product is intended for a
unique application or limited distribution. Other considerations could
include product complexity, the manufacturer's previous product audit
results, extent of the product's use in the mining community, and the
time elapsed since the last audit or since the product was first
approved.
There are other circumstances or causes when additional audits may
be necessary to verify compliance with the technical requirements.
Examples of such circumstances would include complaints about the
safety or performance of a product, product changes that have not been
approved, audit test results that warrant further testing to determine
compliance, and evaluation of corrective action taken by an approval
holder.
If discrepancies are discovered during an audit, the Agency will
provide the approval holder an opportunity to present information. If
the approval holder cannot demonstrate compliance, MSHA may initiate
revocation proceedings under the revocation provisions of this
proposal.
Proposed Sec. 14.11 is derived from existing Sec. Sec. 18.16,
7.9, and 15.11, and addresses the revocation procedure and rights of
approval holders.
Proposed Sec. 14.11(a) provides that MSHA may revoke an approval
when a conveyor belt fails to meet the technical requirements of the
approval, or creates a danger or hazard when used in an underground
coal mine.
MSHA's practice is to treat approval holders as ``licensees'' under
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. 558). Consistent with
this practice, proposed Sec. 14.11(b) would provide that approval
holders be given certain due process considerations prior to revocation
of an approval. These considerations include being provided with (1) a
written notice of the Agency's intent to revoke a product approval; (2)
an explanation of the reasons for the proposed revocation; and (3) an
opportunity to demonstrate or achieve compliance with the technical
requirements for approval.
Proposed Sec. 14.11(c) would provide the approval holder the
opportunity for a hearing to appeal MSHA's decision.
Proposed Sec. 14.11(d) would provide for immediate suspension of
the approval of the product without prior written notice to the
approval holder if the product poses an imminent danger or hazard to
the safety or health of miners. The suspension may continue until
revocation proceedings are completed. Consistent with MSHA's practice,
once an approval is suspended, MSHA would notify the public of this
action through recall notices on its Web site at http://www.msha.gov.
All affected products
[[Page 35032]]
must be removed immediately from underground coal mines, and MSHA would
initiate enforcement action for failure to do so.
MSHA believes that it must have the capability to order removal of
noncompliant belt if an imminent hazard is created. Removal would
protect miners from potential injury and life-threatening fire hazards.
Subpart B--Technical Requirements
Flame-resistant conveyor belt would be tested under proposed Sec.
14.20(a) in accordance with the flame test specified in proposed Sec.
14.22. This test would assure that conveyor belts are difficult to
ignite and thereby are highly resistant to flame propagation. MSHA
recognizes that other tests may exist or be developed in the future
which could also serve as appropriate for evaluating flame resistant
qualities of conveyor belt for use in underground coal mines.
Accordingly, proposed Sec. 14.20(b) would permit an alternate test to
be used to determine the flame resistance of conveyor belts for
approval, as long as the alternate test is determined by MSHA to be
equivalent.
Once a determination of equivalency is made an alternate test under
existing Sec. 6.20 and proposed Sec. 14.4(e), MSHA would notify the
public in the Federal Register. Applicants could choose to have their
belts tested for approval using the laboratory-scale flame test or the
equivalent alternate test.
Proposed Sec. 14.21 would describe the principal parts of the BELT
apparatus used to flame-test conveyor belts. Copies of drawings which
depict the test apparatus will be available from MSHA upon request.
Proposed Sec. 14.21(a) would require a horizontal test chamber 66
inches (167.6 cm) long by 18 inches (45.7 cm) square (inside
dimension). The chamber dimensions were established from the large-
scale belt flammability studies. The test chamber is constructed from 1
inch (2.5 cm) thick Marinite[supreg] I, or equivalent insulating
material. Marinite[supreg] I was selected because it is a commercially
available noncombustible insulating material that minimizes thermal
losses through the walls and is able to withstand repeated test fires.
The reference to Marinite[supreg] I is not an MSHA endorsement of the
product. Should minor cracking occur in the Marinite[supreg] I, it can
be repaired using an appropriate sealant. However, the Marinite[supreg]
I or equivalent insulating material must be replaced and not repaired
if the crack or break is across the total thickness.
Proposed Sec. 14.21(b) would require a 16-gauge (0.16 cm)
stainless steel duct section, tapering over at least a 24-inch (61 cm)
length from a 20-inch (51 cm) square cross-sectional area at the test
chamber connection to a 12-inch (30.5 cm) diameter exhaust duct, or
equivalent. The interior surface of the tapered duct section would be
lined with \1/2\ inch (1.27 cm) thick ceramic blanket insulation or
equivalent insulating material. The use of stainless steel minimizes
corrosion and the tapered duct section allows a smooth airflow to enter
the exhaust duct. The tapered duct is lined with ceramic blanket
insulation to minimize high duct temperatures and thermal expansion.
Proposed Sec. 14.21(c) requires a U-shaped gas-fueled impinged jet
burner igniting source. The U-tube measures 12 inches (30.5 cm) long
and 4 inches (10.2 cm) wide with two parallel rows of 6 jets each. The
burner jets are slanted so that they point toward each other in pairs
and the flames from these pairs impinge upon each other. The burner
fuel is methane or natural gas of suitable purity. A burner unit
available from the Solarflo[supreg] Corporation, Model U-10 using Model
Number 640 jets producing 7,500 BTU per hour per jet is suitable to
comply with these specifications. This burner unit, which is an
impinged jet burner and is the burner type used as the igniting source
in the BELT, is listed to assist the public and is not an MSHA
endorsement of the Solarflo[supreg] product. Any other burner unit
which meets the proposed specification would be appropriate to be used
as part of the test apparatus. This burner was referenced because it is
commercially available and provides a reliable, reproducible ignition
source that can burn methane or natural gas. The BELT results correlate
well with the large-scale belt flammability test results when using the
described burner and gaseous fuel in conjunction with the other
parameters.
Proposed Sec. 14.21(d) would require a removable steel rack,
consisting of 2 parallel rails and supports constructed from slotted
angle iron, to be used to hold a belt sample. The rack dimensions of 7
\1/8\ inches (17.8 0.3 cm) wide, 60 \1/8\ inches (152.4 0.3 cm) long and 5
\1/8\ inches (12.7 0.3 cm) between the rails are specified
in the proposal.
Typically, commercially available, 1 inch (2.5 cm) by 1\3/4\ inch
(4.4 cm) by \1/8\ inch (0.3 cm) thick angle iron with predrilled \1/4\
inch (0.6 cm) diameter holes spaced 1 inch (2.5 cm) apart is used. The
top surface of the rack is 8 \1/8\ inches (22.9 0.3 cm) from the inside roof of the test chamber. The rack
materials and dimensions were selected so that the rack adequately
supports the belt sample and withstands repeated tests with only minor
warping due to heat while minimizing the rack's thermal mass. The
distance from the top surface of the rack to the inside roof of the
test chamber was established based on the comparison of the test
results and the development of correlation parameters with the large-
scale belt flammability studies.
The BELT apparatus does not contain any pollution control system
for exhaust fumes created during flame tests. If an applicant chooses
to build a test apparatus and perform the BELT for research or quality
assurance purposes, some type of effluent control may be required to
meet State and local emission standards. There may be a variety of
methods and designs that will work to control exhaust fumes without
affecting the test results. Because different jurisdictions can have
different air quality standards, one pollution control system may not
be suitable for all locations. Therefore, each unit should comply with
applicable environmental regulations.
Proposed Sec. 14.22 would specify how the test for flame
resistance of conveyor belts would be conducted. It would provide that
the test be performed in the required sequence using a flame test
apparatus meeting the specifications of proposed Sec. 14.21.
Measurements are rounded to the nearest tenth of a centimeter.
Small changes in barometric pressure, humidity, and ambient
temperature should not have a significant effect on the test results.
Published literature indicates that small changes in atmospheric
pressure have little or no effect on flame propagation. Variations in
ambient temperature did not show a trend in either decreasing or
increasing the burn damage of belts tested. A small increase or
decrease of relative humidity will not have a significant effect on the
flame propagation because conveyor belts are typically impervious to
moisture.
The proposal addresses those variables that have an appreciable
effect on the test results in order to maintain consistency in the
testing method.
Proposed Sec. 14.22(a) would specify the test procedure sequence
needed to determine the flame resistance of conveyor belts. The
technical dimensions and tolerances critical to the proper conduct of
the test and to maintain consistency in the test method are specified
in this proposal. Dimensions that have no effect on the test results
are specified without a tolerance and are indicated as approximate. For
example, in proposed Sec. 14.22(a)(3), the securing locations for the
fourth and fifth fastenings are not
[[Page 35033]]
critical and, therefore, the dimensions are specified as approximate.
However, where dimensions could impact the test results, tolerances for
the dimensions are given to maintain the consistency of test
conditions.
Proposed Sec. 14.22(a)(1) would require that three belt samples
must be preconditioned by being laid flat at 70 10[deg] F
(21 5[deg] C) for at least 24 hours prior to the test.This
would: assure that the samples are at laboratory temperatures,
facilitate sample mounting, and minimize curling during the test.
A conveyor belt that has been rolled prior to testing is more
likely to rebound to the rolled position during testing. This action is
considered ``curling'' and may lead to erroneous test results. Samples
which have been rolled prior to testing can develop sufficient curling
forces to overcome the holding capabilities of the cotter pins
installed to retain the sample on the rack. Should curling occur, MSHA
would need to test additional samples in order to assure that reliable
test results have been obtained. The Agency has determined that the use
of flat, unrolled samples greatly reduces the occurrence of curling.
Proposed Sec. 14.22(a)(2) would require that the belt sample be
placed on the rails of the rack with the load carrying surface facing
up. If a belt is constructed without having a designated top cover, it
will be mounted without regard to cover orientation. For example, many
PVC belts are constructed with a solid woven carcass and the top or
bottom cover is not designated. Therefore, either side of the belt
could be mounted as the load-bearing cover. The sample must extend 1
\1/8\ inch (2.5 0.3 cm) beyond the front of
the rails and 1 \1/8\ inch (2.5 0.3 cm) from
the outer lengthwise edge of each rail.
This centers the longitudinal axis of the sample along the
centerline of the rack with the first inch of the sample in the
ignition area and not in contact with the rack. The 1 \1/
8\ inch (2.5 0.3 cm) overlap that extends beyond the front
of the rail facilitates ignition of the belt sample by minimizing the
thermal heat sink created by the sample rack. A greater overlap can
result in the sample curling or pulling back from the burner during the
ignition period.
Proposed Sec. 14.22(a)(3) would require that the belt sample be
fastened to the rails of the rack by drilling or punching holes along
the long edges of the sample and using steel washers and cotter pins as
fasteners. Each washer is typically \3/4\ inch (1.9 cm) square and \1/
16\ inch (0.2 cm) thick with a \3/16\ inch (0.5 cm) diameter hole. A
washer is placed over each sample hole and a cotter pin is inserted
through the hole in the belt and rail. The cotter pin is spread apart
to secure the sample to the rail. The locations of the fasteners were
chosen so that the majority (6 of 10) would be in the ignition area to
minimize the belt sample pulling away from the burner, or lifting and
curling during the ignition period. Specific fastener locations with
tolerances for holes 4 and 5 were not identified. It is MSHA's
experience that the exact location of these fasteners is not critical
to the retention of the sample and does not influence the test results.
Additional fasteners can be used in the ignition region for belts that
lift excessively. The fasteners facilitate the secure mounting of the
belt sample and are too small to influence the test results by heat
absorption, even if additional fasteners are used.
Proposed Sec. 14.22(a)(4) would require centering the rack and
mounted sample in the test chamber with the front end of the sample 6
\1/2\ inches (15.2 1.3 cm) from the entrance
of the chamber. This location reduces the disturbance of the airflow
entering the test chamber. The location is based on the correlation of
the BELT results to the results of large-scale belt flammability
studies.
Proposed Sec. 14.22(a)(5) would require the airflow passing over
the belt sample to be 200 20 ft/min (61 6 m/
min) as measured by a 4 inch (10.2 cm) diameter vane anemometer, or
equivalent device. This anemometer measurement is taken on the inside
of the chamber on the centerline of the belt 12 \1/2\
inches (30.5 1.3 cm) from the entrance of the chamber. The
airflow and measuring location selected are based on comparison of the
test results with the large-scale belt flammability studies. MSHA
identified the variables that affect the conditions of the test, such
as air velocity and the ambient air and tunnel temperatures while
conducting several hundred belt flame tests. Therefore, this provision
would require the airflow passing over the belt sample to be 200 20 ft/min (61 6 m/min).
Proposed Sec. 14.22(a)(6) would require that, before starting a
test of each sample, the inner surface temperature of the chamber roof
be measured at points 6 \1/2\, 30 \1/2\, and
60 \1/2\ inches (15.2 1.3, 76.2
1.3, and 152.4 1.3 cm) from the front entrance. A \1/2\
inch (1.3 cm) tolerance is added to the location for the temperature
measurement points in paragraph (a)(6) because this tolerance is needed
to maintain consistency of the test conditions. The temperature must
not exceed 95 [deg]Fahrenheit (35 [deg]Centigrade) at any of these
points with the specified airflow passing through the chamber. The
temperature of the air entering the chamber during each test of the
three samples is also required to be not less than 50 [deg]Fahrenheit
(10 [deg]Centigrade). These temperature limits are specified to
maintain the repeatability of the test results and to maintain the
comparison obtained with the large-scale belt flammability studies. An
upper limit on airflow and a lower limit on the temperature of the air
entering the test chamber are included as test control parameters.
These test parameters are designed to assure the test chamber
temperature meets certain restrictions for each of the three tests.
Proposed Sec. 14.22(a)(7) would specify that the burner be
positioned in front of the belt sample's leading edge, so that when
ignited the flames from the two rows of jets impinge in front of the
belt's edge and distribute uniformly on the top and bottom surfaces of
the sample. A \1/8\ inch tolerance was added to the location dimension
for the burner jets. This tolerance is important because it maintains
the consistency of the test method. The alignment of the burner
provides for the uniform heating of the sample, which is necessary to
maintain the consistency of the test results.
The exact burner orientation needed to provide uniform distribution
of flame on the top and bottom surfaces of the test sample may vary
depending upon the belt sample's thickness. Based upon comparison tests
and experience gained in developing the BELT procedure, the burner must
be slanted downward from the vertical, at approximately a 15[deg]
angle, and located \3/4\ \1/8\ inch (1.9 0.3
cm) from the front edge of the belt. Slanting of the burner compensates
for the buoyancy of the burner flames. The appropriate burner alignment
necessary for uniform distribution of flame may be determined by
adjustments prior to igniting the samples under test.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 14.22(a)(8) and (a)(9) would require that, with
the burner lowered away from the sample, the gas flow to the burner be
adjusted to 1.2 0.1 standard cubic feet per minute (SCFM)
(34 2.8 liters per minute) and be maintained at this value
throughout the 5 to 5.1 minute ignition period. Once the test is
completed, the flame should be safely extinguished. One standard cubic
foot is defined as the amount of gas which occupies one cubic foot at
72 [deg]F and one atmosphere pressure (1 cubic liter at 22 [deg]C and
101 kilopascal. The specified gas flow provides a stable flame and is
based on a comparison of the test results with the large-scale belt
flammability studies.
After completion of each test, proposed Sec. 14.22(a)(10) would
require that the undamaged portion across the
[[Page 35034]]
entire width of the sample be determined by examining the tested
sample. Blistering, without charring, is not considered damage because
blistering could result from the effects of heat rather than the
presence of flame. Determining the undamaged portion across the entire
width of the sample is necessary for specifying acceptable performance
of the conveyor belt.
For acceptable belt performance, proposed Sec. 14.22(b) would
require that each of the three tested samples exhibit an undamaged
portion across the entire width of the sample length. This criterion is
based on the correlation of the BELT results to the results of large-
scale belt flammability studies.
Proposed Sec. 14.23 is intended to facilitate the introduction of
new technology or new applications of existing technology with respect
to conveyor belts. This would provide for the approval of a conveyor
belt which incorporates technology for which the requirements of this
part are not now applicable.
Conforming Amendments
This proposal would require conforming amendments to existing
approval regulations in parts 6 and 18 and safety standards for
underground coal mines in part 75.
Part 6--Testing and Evaluation by Independent Laboratories and Non-MSHA
Product Safety Standards
The definition of ``Equivalent non-MSHA product safety standards''
under Sec. 6.2 and the applications for equivalency under Sec.
6.20(a)(1) would be amended by adding Part 14 (Conveyor Belts in
Underground Coal Mines) to the list of approval parts affected by this
proposal. These are administrative and conforming provisions.
Part 18--Electric Motor-Driven Mine Equipment and Accessories
Part 18 would be amended by removing the term ``conveyor belt''
from existing Sec. Sec. 18.1, 18.2, 18.6(a), 18.6(i), 18.9(a) and
18.65. The revised sections of Part 18 would only relate to acceptance
of hoses, and existing Sec. 18.6(c) would be removed and reserved.
MSHA is proposing these conforming amendments to part 18 because
applications for approval of conveyor belts will be considered only
under Part 14.
Part 75--Mandatory Safety Standards--Underground Coal Mines
Subpart L--Fire Protection
Proposed Sec. 75.1108 would require the use of improved flame-
resistant conveyor belt in underground coal mines. Under the proposal,
until one year after publication in the Federal Register, operators
could use conveyer belts in underground coal mines which are either:
(1) Approved as flame-resistant under Part 14, or (2) accepted as
flame-resistant under Part 18. Proposed Sec. 75.1108(b) would require
that one year after the effective date of the rule, all conveyor belts
purchased for use in underground coal mines must be approved as flame-
resistant under Part 14.
Under this proposal, for a period of one year, mine operators would
have the option of using conveyor belts which have been accepted under
existing part 18, or have been approved under new part 14.
After one year, the mine operator would be required to purchase
only belts meeting the requirements of proposed part 14. Mine operators
would be permitted to use existing belts until replacement is
necessary.
Section 75.1108-1 is removed from the 30 CFR because it is no
longer needed.
B. Fire Prevention and Detection and Approval of the Use of Air From
the Belt Entry To Ventilate Working Sections
1. General
This proposed rule will enhance miner safety and health by
including improved requirements for the use of air from the belt entry,
belt maintenance, and fire detection.
The proposal includes: New procedures to approve the use of air
from the belt entry to ventilate working sections; replacing point-type
heat sensors with carbon monoxide systems in all coal mines;
qualifications for AMS operators; requirements for escapeways; limits
on respirable dust in the belt entry; maximum and minimum air
velocities in the belt entry; standardized tactile signals for
lifelines; use of smoke sensors in mines using air from the belt entry;
and improved belt entry maintenance.
The Panel was chartered to make recommendations regarding the
utilization of air from the belt entry in underground coal mining;
therefore, many of its recommendations deal with requirements for only
those mines that use air from the belt entry to ventilate working
sections. However, the Panel recommended that some requirements should
be applied to all underground coal mines. These include: Airlock doors
along escapeways; minimum belt entry air velocity; standardized tactile
signals for lifelines; maintaining higher ventilating pressures in the
primary escapeway to the extent possible; replacing point-type heat
sensors with carbon monoxide sensors for fire detection in belt
entries; and belt entry maintenance. Consistent with the Panel's
recommendations, this proposed rule includes provisions applying to
mines that use air from the belt entry to ventilate working sections,
as well as to mines that do not.
As a result of the proposed change to require the use of carbon
monoxide sensors for fire detection along belt lines in all mines, the
Agency is proposing to revise several other related provisions. These
include sensor spacing, establishing a warning level, responses to
warning and malfunction signals, testing and calibration requirements,
and minimum air velocity to incorporate the use of carbon monoxide
sensors.
The Agency is aware that some mines currently use carbon monoxide
sensors to monitor the belt entry under granted petitions for
modification or existing provisions which allow systems equivalent to
point-type heat sensors. These would be superseded by a final rule, and
operators would be required to comply with all new requirements.
This part of the proposal addresses the following Panel
recommendations:
Recommendation number 5--Belt entry and conveyor belt
maintenance;
Recommendation number 6--Special requirements for the use
of belt air;
Recommendation number 7--Belt air approval recommendation;
Recommendation number 8--Discontinuing point-type heat
sensors;
Recommendation number 9--Smoke sensors;
Recommendation number 10--Use of diesel-discriminating
sensors;
Recommendation number 12--AMS operator training
certification;
Recommendation number 13--Minimum and maximum air
velocities;
Recommendation number 14--Escapeways and leakage;
Recommendation number 15--Lifelines;
Recommendation number 16--Point-feeding;
Recommendation number 17--Respirable dust; and
Recommendation number 18--Mine methane.
[[Page 35035]]
2. Discussion of Proposed Rule.
Part 48--Training and Retraining of Miners
Subpart B--Training and Retraining of Miners Working at Surface Mines
and Surface Areas of Underground Mines
Section 48.27(a)--Training of Miners Assigned to a Task in Which They
Have Had no Previous Experience; Minimum Courses of Instruction
The Panel recommended that MSHA initiate rulemaking to require the
qualification and certification of AMS operators. To address Panel
recommendation 12, MSHA is proposing a revision to existing Sec.
48.27(a), and adding a new Sec. 75.156.
Proposed Sec. 48.27(a) would require that miners assigned new work
tasks as Atmospheric Monitoring System (AMS) operators be trained
before they perform these duties. MSHA believes that AMS operators must
have the background, experience, training, and authority to assure that
proper actions are taken in response to AMS signals, including alerts,
alarms, and malfunctions, to provide the highest degree of safety to
all affected miners.
Existing Sec. 48.27(a) requires that a training plan be approved
by MSHA for specific tasks, and that the training be provided prior to
the miner performing those tasks. The Agency is proposing to add AMS
operators as a specific task to be covered by this provision. AMS
operators are required only at mines using air from the belt entry to
ventilate working sections and areas where mechanized mining equipment
is being installed or removed.
Part 75--Mandatory Safety Standards--Underground Coal Mines
Subpart B--Qualified and Certified Persons
Section 75.156--AMS Operator, Qualifications
Proposed Sec. 75.156(a) would require that to be qualified as an
AMS operator, a person shall be provided with task training in
accordance with the mine operator's approved part 48 training plan.
MSHA recognizes a significant portion of the knowledge necessary is
mine-specific and must be tailored to conditions at each operation.
MSHA is proposing that this task training be provided, at each mine
where the AMS operator performs these duties.
Current AMS operators must have been provided task training under
an approved part 48 plan to be considered qualified under Sec.
75.156(a). To continue to perform the functions of a qualified AMS
operator after the effective date of a final rule, this training must
be provided.
The proposed training requirements would give the Agency oversight
in the review and approval of the part 48 training plan for AMS
operators, and allow MSHA inspectors to determine the effectiveness of
this training. Under the proposal, AMS operators would need to be task
trained at each mine in which they perform these duties due to
different AMS designs, variations in ventilation plans and systems,
complexities of evacuation plan requirements, and uniqueness of the
mine configurations. MSHA will develop a compliance guide to assist
mine operators in identifying essential elements to be included in the
training plan.
Proposed Sec. 75.156(b) would require that an AMS operator must be
able to demonstrate to an authorized representative of the Secretary
that he/she is qualified to perform the assigned tasks. The inspector
will make a determination about the AMS operators qualifications during
regular inspections. In making this determination, the inspector would
ask the AMS operator questions regarding: The responses to AMS signals;
notification requirements; approved mine plans; recordkeeping
requirements; and AMS operating requirements. This would assure that
the AMS operator fully understands how to operate and respond to the
AMS.
The Panel also recommended certification or qualification of the
responsible person, who is required in Sec. 75.1501, to take charge
during mine emergencies. MSHA addressed training of responsible persons
in the Agency's final rule on Mine Rescue Teams (73 FR 7636).
Subpart D--Ventilation
Section 75.323--Actions for Excessive Methane
In Recommendation 18, the Panel stated that methane liberated from
ribs along the belt, or from the broken coal on the belt, can present
significant safety hazards. The Panel stated that if methane levels in
the belt air course are too high to provide dilution of methane
liberated at the working sections, then the use of the air from the
belt entry to ventilate a working section should be discontinued.
To address the Panel's concern, MSHA is considering adding a new
provision concerning methane levels in the belt entry. While this
proposal does not contain a specific provision on this issue, MSHA is
requesting comments on including a requirement in the final rule which
would limit methane levels in the belt entry when the air from that
entry is used to ventilate the working section. In making its
recommendation, the Panel wanted to assure that ventilating in this
manner would not increase the methane content at the working section.
This new provision would provide an added margin of safety for miners
as well as a greater probability that methane would be reduced when the
air reaches the working section.
The Panel recommended that the District Manager regularly evaluate
any working section that has methane readings in the belt entry at or
above 0.5% methane, measured 200 feet outby the tailpiece of the belt,
to prevent the gas liberated on a conveyor belt or from the belt entry
from increasing the methane content at the working section above 1.0%.
Under the existing standard, the allowable limit for methane in
belt air courses is 1.0 percent because of the potential fire and
ignition sources in the belt entry. MSHA believes that this new
provision would be consistent with the Panel's recommendation, and its
intent that methane levels in the belt entry be kept to a minimum.
MSHA is considering including a specific requirement in the final
rule that the mine operator make changes or adjustments to reduce the
concentration of methane present in the belt entry as measured 200 feet
outby the section loading point. At this point in the rulemaking, MSHA
is considering requiring that operators take action when methane is
between a range of 0.5 and 1.0 percent. MSHA is soliciting comments on
the appropriateness of such a standard and on the specific level at
which changes or adjustments should be made.
In its existing enforcement program, MSHA measures methane levels
in the belt air course as part of the regular inspections made at all
underground coal mines. As suggested by the Panel, MSHA will check the
methane levels in belt air courses 200 feet outby the section loading
point to assure that methane levels in the working section are not
increased as a result of using air from the belt entry.
Section 75.333(c)(4)--Ventilation Controls
Proposed Sec. 75.333(c)(4) is a new provision that addresses Panel
Recommendation 14 dealing with airlock doors. High pressure
differentials on doors can lead to serious injuries to miners opening
and closing these doors. Providing an airlock between entries provides
a safe means
[[Page 35036]]
for miners to travel between two air courses. An airlock consists of a
pair of doors installed in ventilation controls between two air
courses, which form a pressure equalizing chamber. A miner would open
the first door, enter the airlock, and close the door. After equalizing
the pressure, the miner can then open the second door and move into the
adjacent entry.
The Panel stated that personnel doors along escapeways should be
installed to establish an airlock when the static force created by the
pressure differential exceeds 125 pounds.
MSHA agrees that there may be instances where the installation of
an airlock is needed due to hazards associated with safely opening and
closing personnel doors where high pressure differentials exist. The
need for safe access is critical during a mine emergency evacuation
when miners must move quickly to adjacent entries.
Proposed Sec. 75.333(c)(4) would require an airlock be established
where the air pressure differential between air courses creates a
static force exceeding 125 pounds on closed personnel doors along
escapeways. MSHA specifically solicits comments on other suitable
pressures.
The Panel recommended a standard based upon the force on the
personnel door of 125 pounds. This force on any specific door is
dependent upon the pressure differential across the ventilation
control, and the surface area of the personnel door. For the same
pressure differential, the force required to open a personnel door
increases proportionately with surface area. Mine operators may have
alternatives to establishing airlocks, including reducing the size of a
personnel door, providing a flap, or sliding door, which may reduce the
static pressure to below 125 pounds. Reducing the size of a personnel
door may lower the static pressure to below 125 pounds.
In order to calculate the force exerted by a pressure differential,
the pressure differential and door dimensions must first be determined.
As reflected in the Panel's example, a 125 pound force limitation on a
3-foot by 4-foot door would be created by a pressure differential of
2.0 inches of water. A 3-foot by 4-foot personnel door has an area of
1728 square inches (3' x 4' = 12 square feet x 144 in2/
ft2 = 1728 square inches). For a force of 125 pounds, the
distribution is 0.0725 pounds per square inch (125 lb/1728
in2= 0.0725 psi). Using the conversion factor, 1 psi = 27.68
inches of water, the equivalent pressure differential can be calculated
to be 2.0 inches of water (0.0725 psi x 27.68 in. H2O/psi =
2.0 inches of water).
The following table shows the door sizes and associated pressure
differentials which create a 125 pound force:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pressure
Door area, square feet differential,
inches H2O
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4....................................................... 6.0
6....................................................... 4.0
9....................................................... 2.7
10...................................................... 2.4
12...................................................... 2.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency solicits comments on the number of airlocks that would
be required under this provision and the associated cost.
Section 75.350--Belt Air Course Ventilation
Proposed Sec. 75.350(a)(2) would include a new requirement that
the minimum air velocity in the belt entry be at least 50 feet per
minute. MSHA has included this new requirement because of proposed
Sec. 75.1103-4 (fire detection systems) which, consistent with the
Panel's recommendation, would prohibit point-type heat sensors for
early-warning and detection of conveyor belt fires, and require the
carbon monoxide fire sensor systems in all belt entries.
When point-type heat sensor (PTHS) systems are used for fire
detection, no minimum velocity in the belt entry is needed because the
sensors are heat-activated. When carbon monoxide sensors are used, a
minimum air velocity of 50 feet per minute is necessary to assure that
carbon monoxide gas produced by a fire will be carried by the air
current to the downwind sensors in a timely manner. This minimum
velocity has been required for over two decades in mines using carbon
monoxide sensors for fire detection, and has been shown to provide
effective early warning.
Under the proposal, lower velocities could be requested by the mine
operator in the ventilation plan in areas where the minimum velocity
cannot be maintained. Where the District Manager approves such a plan,
carbon monoxide sensor spacing would have to be reduced to no greater
than 350 feet. NIOSH research and Agency experience show that the
reduced spacing is necessary to assure carbon monoxide resulting from a
fire is moved quickly from a fire to downwind sensors.
Proposed Sec. 75.350(b) addresses Panel Recommendation 7, which
states that MSHA should evaluate, as part of the approval of the mine
ventilation plan, the safety of the use of air in the belt entry to
ventilate working sections. The Panel further stated that the District
Manager must take special care to evaluate whether the air from the
belt entry can be routed to the working face in a manner that is safe
for all miners involved.
Under the proposal, MSHA would revise existing Sec. 75.350(b) to
require that the use of air from a belt entry to ventilate a working
section be permitted only when evaluated and approved by the District
Manager in the ventilation plan. Under the proposal, the mine operator
would have to provide information in the plan that the use of air from
the belt entry affords at least the same measure of protection where
belt haulage entries are not used to ventilate working places. The mine
operator should include and the District Manager would consider
technical reasons to use air from the belt entry as an intake air
source for the section. These reasons include dilution of methane gases
and respirable coal mine dust, improved balancing of ventilation
pressures between entries to minimize contamination of escapeways, and
reduced ground control hazards. In developing cost estimates for the
Agency's Preliminary Regulatory Economic Analysis, MSHA assumed that
mines currently using belt air would continue to use belt air under the
proposal. In making a determination as to whether to approve the plan,
the District Manager will evaluate all of the conditions in the mine
and the operator's information.
Under the proposal, MSHA would allow a 3-month delayed compliance
date for mine operators to submit a revision of the ventilation plan to
the District Manager. Failure to submit a revised ventilation plan
would result in enforcement action by the Agency.
MSHA will evaluate revisions to the mine ventilation plans
consistent with the existing policy and procedure for plan approval.
The Agency will approve those plans and revisions that assure the use
of air from the belt entry to ventilate working sections affords at
least the same measure of protection where belt haulage entries are not
used to ventilate working places. The District Manager will notify the
operator in writing of the approval or denial of approval of a proposed
ventilation plan or proposed revision. A copy of this notification will
be sent to the representative of miners by the District Manager. If the
District Manager denies approval of a proposed plan or revision, the
District Manager will notify the operator, in writing, of the
deficiencies and provide an opportunity for discussion with the
District Manager. The District Manager will also notify the operator of
the
[[Page 35037]]
deadline for submitting the required information.
If the operator does not respond by the deadline, or if issues
cannot be resolved through discussion, the District Manager will send a
second letter notifying the operator: (1) That the plan can not be
approved; (2) of the final deadline for submitting any required
information; and (3) that after that deadline, the plan will be
revoked. If the operator does not submit the required information, the
District Manager would send a letter notifying the operator that the
plan is revoked. Revocation would not be effective until completion of
current mining.
Operating after the revocation date is a violation of the standard
requiring an approved plan. A citation would be issued for failure to
have an approved plan, as required by the ventilation standard. MSHA
solicits comments on this provision. The Agency is particularly
interested in comments related to circumstances in which the District
Manager does not approve the continued use of belt air to ventilate
active workings.
MSHA recognizes that there are potential sources of fire in belt
conveyor entries, and that the use of air from the belt entry to
ventilate working sections can result in contaminants from a fire being
carried to the working section. The Agency also recognizes that there
may be technical reasons to use air from the belt entry as an intake
air source for the section. These reasons include dilution of methane
gases and respirable coal mine dust, and improved balancing of
ventilation pressures between entries to minimize contamination of
escapeways.
Based on Agency experience, MSHA has determined that ground control
hazards may require a reduction in the number of entries developed on a
working section, as well as the use of air from the belt entry to
supplement the intake air quantity. Under the proposal, the District
Manager will have the authority to approve the use of air in the belt
entry to ventilate the working section only in sections developed with
three or more entries. Like the existing standard, a petition for
modification will be required for a mine developing sections with two
entries to use air from the belt entry to ventilate the working section
or to put the belt in the return air course.
To address the hazards associated with the use of belt entry air,
an operator's request to use air from the belt entry to ventilate the
working section must include additional protections for the safety of
miners in the event of a fire in that entry. Under the existing
standards, these protections include an early-warning fire detection
system that will rapidly alert miners to a fire in the belt entry and
allow time to escape; training for miners on required actions when an
alert or alarm occurs; limiting to fifty percent the amount of air that
can be delivered to the section from the belt entry; and monitoring of
carbon monoxide levels upwind of point-feed regulators. Consistent with
the Panel's recommendations, the Agency is proposing additional
requirements that the District Manager would consider when approving a
ventilation plan to allow the use of air from a belt entry to ventilate
the working section.
Under the existing Sec. 75.350(b)(3), the average concentration of
respirable dust in the belt air course, when used as a section intake
air course, must be maintained at or below 1.0 mg/m3.
Proposed Sec. 75.350(b)(3) would additionally require that where
miners on the working section are on a reduced respirable coal mine
dust standard that is below 1.0 mg/m3, the average
concentration of respirable dust in the belt entry must be at or below
the lowest applicable respirable dust standard on that section.
In Recommendation 17, the Panel stated that respirable coal mine
dust concentrations in the air coursed through a belt conveyor entry,
and used to ventilate working sections, should be as low as feasible
and must not exceed the existing regulated concentration of 1.0 mg/
m3. The Panel also stated that District Managers should have
the authority to require improvements in dust control in the belt entry
if the dust concentration exceeds an 8-hour TWA of 1.0 mg/m3
or raises the concentration in that section above the exposure limit.
Reduced standards are frequently established on working sections
due to presence of respirable quartz. The exposure limit for respirable
coal mine dust is 2.0 mg/m3 when quartz levels are five
percent or less. This standard is reduced when respirable dust in the
mine atmosphere contains more than five percent quartz. Reduced
standards are computed by dividing the percent of quartz measured in
the mine atmosphere into the number ten. For example, if the mine
atmosphere contains 20 percent quartz, the reduced standard would be
0.5 mg/m3 (10/20 = 0.5 mg/m3). The purpose of
reduced standards is to limit miner exposure to respirable quartz.
This proposal assures that the respirable coal mine dust exposure
of miners on the working section would not be increased by the use of
air from the belt entry. For example, if the standard for the
continuous miner operator (the designated occupation) is 2.0 mg/
m3 and the reduced standard for the roof bolter on the same
working section (a designated area) is 0.8 mg/m3, the
average concentration of respirable dust in the belt entry used to
ventilate that working section could not exceed 0.8 mg/m3.
This is because 0.8 mg/m3 is below 1 mg/m3 and is
the lowest applicable respirable dust standard on the section.
If a mine operator is unable to effectively reduce the respirable
dust levels in the belt entry to meet this proposed requirement, the
District Manager would have the authority to revoke the ventilation
plan which had allowed the use of air from the belt entry to ventilate
the working section.
MSHA believes that technology is available to effectively lower
respirable dust levels in the belt entry. Because a principal source of
respirable dust is at belt transfer points, technologies such as
improved water sprays may reduce dust concentrations. If a mine
operator reduces the air velocity in the belt entry, this could result
in less scouring and lower respirable dust concentrations. As the Panel
indicated, the operator should implement improved engineering controls
whenever possible, or use air from another intake air course.
The Agency solicits comments on this provision for assuring that
air from the belt entry does not increase miners' exposure to
respirable coal mine dust.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 75.350(b)(7) and (b)(8) are new provisions to
address Recommendation 13. The Panel recommended minimum and maximum
air velocities in belt entries for mines using air from belt entries to
ventilate working sections. The Panel recommended a minimum velocity of
100 feet per minute, and a maximum of 1,000 feet per minute in the belt
entry, but acknowledged that there are situations where these
velocities may be difficult to maintain. For this reason, the Panel
recommended allowing the District Manager to approve exceptions to the
minimum and maximum velocities.
In its report, the Panel provided three reasons for requiring a
minimum velocity of 100 feet per minute: Improve the response time for
fire detection; reduce the possibility of methane layering; and
mitigate underground fog formation. The Panel recommended limiting the
maximum velocity to 1,000 feet per minute to address physical
discomfort to workers when air from the belt entry is used to ventilate
working sections. Also, according to the Panel, when air from the belt
entry is used to ventilate working sections, increased
[[Page 35038]]
velocity will result in a greater entrainment of dust particles,
resulting in a need to limit the velocity.
Consistent with the Panel's recommendations, proposed Sec.
75.350(b)(7) would require a minimum air velocity in the belt entry of
100 feet per minute. Proposed Sec. 75.350(b)(8) would require a
maximum air velocity of 1,000 feet per minute in the belt entry.
In its report, the Panel noted that it may be difficult to achieve
minimum air velocities in locations outby point-feed regulators, and
where the air meets a partial obstruction like an airway constriction
at an overcast or undercast. MSHA believes that additional areas where
minimum air velocities may be hard to achieve include where additional
air is added to the belt air course, and in areas where entry height is
exceptionally high.
Consistent with the Panel's recommendation, the proposal provides
that the District Manager may approve exceptions to the minimum and
maximum velocities based on specific mine conditions. These exceptions
would be permitted where reductions to sensor spacing or alert and
alarm levels are made to assure the fire detection capabilities of the
AMS are maintained. In developing their ventilation plans, mine
operators should use the criteria in NIOSH research (RI 9380) to
determine appropriate alert and alarm levels.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 75.350(d)(1) and (d)(7) address Recommendation
16. The Panel recommended that for mines using air from the belt entry
to ventilate working sections and areas where mechanized mining
equipment is being installed or removed, where possible, a second
carbon monoxide sensor be installed in the primary escapeway 1,000 feet
upwind of the sensor required by the existing standard. The Panel also
recommended that, when these sensors detect alert or alarm levels of
carbon monoxide and the mine has designated the belt as the alternate
escapeway, the AMS operator should have the ability and authority to
remotely close or open the point-feed regulator after consulting with
the responsible person designated by the mine operator to take charge
during mine emergencies.
MSHA is aware that point-feeding air from the primary escapeway to
the belt entry designated as the alternate escapeway can present
significant problems for miners who must evacuate the mine due to a
fire in the primary escapeway.
Proposed Sec. 75.350(d)(1) would require a second carbon monoxide
sensor to be installed 1,000 feet upwind of the point-feed regulator,
unless the mine operator requests a lesser distance be approved by the
District Manager in the mine ventilation plan based on mine-specific
conditions. The proposal would allow the District Manager to approve a
lesser distance in the ventilation plan, dependent upon mine
conditions. For example, it may be necessary to request a lesser
distance near intake shafts where the distance from the point-feed
regulator to the bottom of the shaft may be less than 1,000 feet.
The second sensor would monitor the primary escapeway for fire.
Agency experience suggests this is possible in most cases since these
regulators are typically near the mouth of development panels or deep
into the mains of the mine.
MSHA believes that this proposal would expedite initiation of
escape in the case of a fire or other emergency. Under the proposal,
fire in the primary escapeway would be detected before contaminants
would be allowed to inundate the secondary escapeway. This early-
warning would provide the AMS operator and responsible person with
additional time to assess potential hazards and determine necessary
corrective actions.
Proposed Sec. 75.350(d)(7) would require that where point-feeding
air from a primary escapeway to a belt entry designated as an
alternative escapeway, point-feed regulators be equipped with a means
to remotely close the regulator or any other means to isolate the two
escapeways. The AMS operator, after consultation with the responsible
person and section foreman, would be capable of performing this
function from the designated surface location. In case of fire or other
emergency, closing of the point-feed regulator provides necessary
separation of the primary and alternate escapeways.
This proposal permits the mine operator to close the regulator or
provide an alternate means of isolating the two escapeways from the
surface. The Agency believes that, in some cases, it may be more
effective to provide an alternate means of isolation, such as an
overhead door, than to close regulators.
When an investigation into the cause of alert and alarm signals is
conducted, the AMS operator, responsible person, and section foreman
would consult to determine the need to close point-feed regulators. The
decision to close point-feed regulators would be made based on this
consultation as recommended by the Panel.
Closure of a regulator can reduce the intake air quantity on a
working section, and may cause sudden and rapid increases in methane
concentrations at the working sections if mining continues. Closing
regulators without notifying sections may lead to an ignition in the
face area, fires and explosions.
This provision would also apply if the belt entry is common with
another entry designated as the alternate escapeway, and the belt air
course is used as a section intake. However, this provision would not
apply if the mine is point-feeding a belt air course which is not used
to ventilate a working section, or if the belt air course entry is not
designated as the alternate escapeway.
The Panel also recommended requiring a means to remotely open the
regulator from the designated surface location. Because the point-feed
regulator is open under normal mining conditions, the Panel's
recommendation would address re-opening the regulator after it is
closed during a fire in the primary escapeway. MSHA believes that
remote reopening could be accomplished by an electric device, such as
an electric arm.
MSHA has not included a requirement for providing a means for re-
opening the regulator from the designated surface location in the
proposal. Even though reopening the point feed regulator could possibly
be necessary if the airflow change caused by closing the point-feed
turns out to have adverse effects on mine ventilation or smoke travel
and must be reversed, MSHA believes that once evacuation is completed,
the need for remote re-opening of the regulator will be rare. The
Agency, however, solicits comments on whether a requirement to remotely
re-open the regulator should be included in the final rule. Please be
specific in your response, including the value of such a provision,
alternatives, rationale, safety benefits to miners, technological and
economic feasibility, and data to support your comment.
Section 75.351(b)--Designated Surface Location and AMS Operator
Proposed Sec. 75.351(b)(2) addresses Panel Recommendation 12. In
that recommendation, the Panel indicated that the highest priority of
the AMS operator should be monitoring and responding to system signals.
Consistent with the Panel's recommendation, the proposal would
require that AMS operators have as a primary duty the responsibility to
monitor the malfunction, alert, and alarm signals of the AMS and to
notify appropriate personnel of these signals. Under the proposal, the
AMS operator would not be prohibited from performing additional duties
as long as the alert, alarm and malfunction signals can be seen or
heard, and a timely
[[Page 35039]]
response can be initiated. This proposal would assure that the AMS
operator's other duties would not adversely affect his/her primary
responsibility of responding to AMS signals.
Section 75.351(e)--Location of Sensors--Belt Air Course
Proposed Sec. 75.351(e) addresses additional requirements for the
location of carbon monoxide and smoke sensors in mines using air from
belt entries to ventilate working sections. The proposal contains other
organizational and clarifying changes.
Proposed Sec. 75.351(e)(1), renumbered from existing Sec.
75.351(e), addresses the location of approved sensors. The term
approved has been added to clarify that all sensors used for fire
detection must be approved under the existing authority of Sec.
75.1103-2. The reference to smoke sensors has been deleted, since the
requirements for smoke sensors would be addressed in Sec.
75.351(e)(2).
Proposed Sec. Sec. 75.351(e)(1)(i) and (ii), are renumbered from
existing Sec. Sec. 75.351(e)(1) and (2). No other changes have been
proposed to these provisions.
Proposed Sec. 75.351(e)(1)(iii), renumbered from existing Sec.
75.351(e)(3), conforms the existing standard for sensor spacing to the
minimum velocity of 100 feet per minute addressed in Panel
Recommendation 13. At mines using air from the belt entry to ventilate
the working sections, proposed Sec. 75.351(e)(1)(iii) would require
1,000-foot sensor spacing where the minimum air velocity of 100 feet
per minute (fpm) is maintained. If the mine operator requests approval
to use velocities less than 100 fpm, but at least 50 fpm, maximum
sensor spacing must be reduced to 500 feet. The proposal retains the
existing requirement to reduce sensor spacing to 350 feet when the
minimum velocity is less than 50 fpm.
The requirement for a minimum velocity in the belt entry is based
on the time it would take for carbon monoxide or smoke to travel from a
fire to the sensors. When the air velocity is reduced, the time
required to carry carbon monoxide gas or smoke to a sensor is
increased. Therefore, the distance between sensors needs to be reduced
to maintain the same level of early-warning fire detection.
The proposed 500-foot spacing interval for velocities between 50
and 100 fpm is a new requirement. MSHA calculated the proposed spacing
requirement, which provides a 10-minute maximum travel time for gases
between sensors. The 500-foot spacing requirement with a velocity
between 50 and 100 fpm is equivalent to the 1,000-foot sensor spacing
with 100 fpm air velocity. The time for carbon monoxide gas or smoke to
travel from a fire to a downwind sensor is no greater than 10 minutes.
Under the existing standard for sensor spacing of 1,000 feet and a
minimum velocity of 50 fpm, the time for carbon monoxide or smoke to
travel from a fire to the sensors is no more than 20 minutes. The
proposed reduction in travel time for carbon monoxide or smoke to reach
the sensors would significantly improve early detection of a fire in
the belt entry.
Proposed Sec. 75.351(e)(1)(iv) has been revised to add the
requirement that if the distance between the belt drive unit, tailpiece
transfer point, and belt take-up unit is more than 100 feet, an
additional sensor would be required to monitor each of these belt
conveyor components. These components are potential fire sources. The
additional sensors will assure earlier detection of a fire.
Proposed Sec. 75.351(e)(1)(v), is renumbered from existing Sec.
75.351(e)(5). No other changes have been proposed to this provision.
Proposed Sec. 75.351(e)(2) is a new provision which addresses
Panel Recommendation 9. The Panel recommended that MSHA require the use
of smoke sensors in addition to carbon monoxide sensors in mines using
air from a belt entry to ventilate working sections at three specific
locations. Under this proposal, smoke sensors would be required to be
installed in areas where air from the belt entry is used to ventilate
working sections and areas where mechanized mining equipment is being
installed or removed.
When smoke sensors become available, mine operators must comply
with the requirements for installing both smoke and carbon monoxide
sensors in those mines that use air from the belt entry to ventilate
the working section.
Proposed Sec. 75.351(e)(2)(i) would require a smoke sensor to be
installed at or near the working section belt tailpiece in the air
stream ventilating the belt entry. In longwall mining systems, the
sensor would be located upwind in the belt entry at a distance no
greater than 150 feet from the mixing point where intake air is mixed
with the belt entry air at or near the tailpiece. A smoke sensor at or
near the section tailpiece will warn miners of smoke prior to it
contaminating the working section. This allows more time for miners to
evacuate the section with less exposure to potentially toxic fumes.
Proposed Sec. 75.351(e)(2)(ii) would require a smoke sensor to be
installed not more than 100 feet downwind of each belt drive unit, each
tailpiece transfer point, and each belt take-up. Under the proposal, if
the belt drive, tailpiece, and take-up for a single transfer point are
installed together in the same air course, they may be monitored with
one sensor located not more than 100 feet downwind of the last
component of the belt drive. However, if the distance between the belt
drive unit, tailpiece transfer point, and belt take-up units is more
than 100 feet, an additional sensor would be required to monitor each
of these belt conveyor components. These components are potential fire
sources. The additional sensors will assure earlier detection of a
fire.
Based upon the Panel's report and Agency experience, MSHA believes
that smoke sensors provide additional protection at the belt drive,
which can be a major source of frictional heating from belt slippage.
This can often produce significant smoke with little carbon monoxide,
and can result in a belt fire.
Proposed Sec. 75.351(e)(2)(iii) would require smoke sensors to be
installed at intervals not to exceed 3,000 feet along each belt entry.
The Agency is not proposing to require a smoke sensor to be installed
near the mid-point of the belt line as recommended by the Panel. The
midpoint of the belt line will change with section advancement or
retreat, which would require splicing of the data line when relocating
the smoke sensor. The frequent splicing of the data lines could allow
moisture and dust to enter the line and may result in communication
failures. Miners have indicated that frequent splicing of the cable
containing the AMS data line can adversely affect the reliability of a
system.
MSHA believes the proposed requirement for smoke sensors along the
belt entry is responsive to the Panel's goal for more effective and
reliable detection of conveyor belt fires. The proposal would avoid
problems associated with frequent relocation of the smoke sensor. The
3,000-foot spacing proposal would require longer belts to be monitored
at additional locations.
In its report, the Panel suggested a delayed effective date for the
smoke sensor requirement, to permit in-mine evaluation of the sensors.
The Panel noted reliability and maintenance issues with the use of
smoke sensors in underground coal mines, especially along conveyor belt
entries. NIOSH is currently testing smoke sensors used in other harsh
industrial environments for their potential use in underground
[[Page 35040]]
mines. NIOSH is evaluating these sensors to assess reliability and
service life.
To allow for further in-mine evaluation and approval of smoke
sensors, MSHA proposes in Sec. 75.351(e)(2)(iv) that this provision be
effective one year after the Secretary has determined that a smoke
sensor is available to reliably detect fire in underground coal mines.
The Secretary's determination would be made after a nationally
recognized testing laboratory formally lists a smoke sensor
specifically tested for use in underground coal mines. In making the
determination regarding the availability of smoke sensors, the
Secretary will also consider whether additional rulemaking is
appropriate. MSHA will notify mine operators of the availability of
smoke sensors by publishing a notice in the Federal Register.
This proposal is based on the Secretary's existing authority under
Sec. 75.1103-2 to approve nationally recognized testing laboratories.
The Secretary has approved two such laboratories for listing or
approving components of automatic fire sensors. They are Underwriters
Laboratories (UL) and Factory Mutual (FM). These laboratories establish
standards for manufacturers of components of automatic fire sensors
used in underground coal mines.
MSHA has recommended change to a commercial standard for smoke
detectors to be applied to address sensor reliability in underground
coal mines. In December 2002, the Agency asked UL to add a category for
smoke sensors for underground coal mines to their commercial
performance standard for smoke sensors (UL268). In MSHA's request to
UL, the Agency asked that the performance standard for smoke sensors
include tests for sensitivity to smoldering and flaming coal. UL has
formed a new working group, which includes an MSHA representative, to
study false alarms caused by coal mine dust and other airborne
particulates.
MSHA's Program Policy Manual provides additional guidance on the
requirements of Sec. 75.1103-2. The Manual states that fire sensors
used in belt entries must be listed or approved by UL or FM. New or
unique devices to be used as fire sensors that are not yet listed by UL
or FM and which may meet the requirements of these standards can be
submitted to MSHA's Office of Technical Support for a determination of
whether they are acceptable to use.
Once a laboratory has formally listed a smoke sensor for use in
underground coal mines, the Secretary will evaluate the sensor to
determine if it will reliably detect a fire in the underground
environment. MSHA believes that, once the smoke sensors for underground
coal mines are available, one year will allow mine operators using air
from belt entries to ventilate working sections sufficient time to
purchase and install the sensors. The Agency intends to keep the mining
community informed of ongoing activities with respect to the
development of smoke sensors for underground coal mines.
Section 75.351(q)--Training
Proposed Sec. 75.351(q) addresses Panel Recommendation 12.
Consistent with the Panel's recommendation, the proposal would specify
the content of required annual training for AMS operators.
Proposed Sec. 75.351(q)(1) would require training subjects to
include: Familiarity with underground mining systems; basic atmospheric
monitoring system requirements; the mine emergency evacuation and
firefighting program of instruction; the mine ventilation system
including planned air directions; appropriate responses to alert, alarm
and malfunction signals; use of mine communication systems including
emergency notification procedures; and AMS recordkeeping requirements.
MSHA expects the training to address the specific conditions and
practices at the mine where the AMS operator is employed. Based on
Agency experience, MSHA believes an understanding of these subjects is
essential to properly perform the duties of an AMS operator.
Proposed Sec. 75.351(q)(2) is new and would require that, at least
once every six months, all AMS operators must travel to all working
sections to retain familiarity with underground mining systems
including haulage, ventilation, communication, and escapeways. The
Panel stated that some AMS operators do not travel underground, and
recommended that they be required to spend at least a day underground
on a semi-annual basis. MSHA believes that the requirement in this
proposal would allow AMS operators to retain familiarity with the mine.
Proposed Sec. 75.351(q)(3) is changed to require records of the
training be maintained for at least two years. The existing requirement
is one year. This will allow MSHA to verify the training in the
previous year has been conducted.
Section 75.352--Actions in Response to AMS Malfunction, Alert, or Alarm
Signals
Proposed Sec. 75.352(f) includes a conforming reference and
organizational changes. It would delete the terms ``50-foot per
minute'' and replace the reference to Sec. 75.351(e)(3) with Sec.
75.350(b)(7).
Proposed Sec. 75.352(g) is a new provision addressing Panel
Recommendation 16. The Panel recommended that when both of the sensors
installed in the primary escapeway monitoring the point feed reach the
carbon monoxide alert level, or if one sensor reaches the alarm level,
a warning signal be given at the regulator location.
The Panel's recommendation addresses point-feed regulators where
air is introduced to a belt entry and used to ventilate the working
section. The Panel specifically limited this recommendation to point-
feed regulators feeding the belt entries designated as alternate
escapeways. Panel Recommendation 16, which relates to the installation
of an additional sensor and remote closing of the point-feed regulator,
is addressed by proposed Sec. 75.351(d)(1) and (d)(7).
Proposed Sec. 75.352(g) would require that the AMS automatically
provide both a visual and audible signal in the belt entry at the
point-feed regulator location, at sections affected by a potential
fire, and the designated surface location. These signals would be
activated when carbon monoxide concentrations reach the alert level at
both point-feed intake monitoring sensors, or the alarm level at either
point-feed intake monitoring sensor.
Under the proposal, visual and audible signals would have to be
automatically activated at all three locations when concentrations of
carbon monoxide at both of the sensors in the intake escapeway reach
the alert level or when one sensor reaches the alarm level.
The signal at the regulator would provide notice to miners nearby
that a fire may have occurred in the primary escapeway, and that the
point-feed regulator could be (or has been) remotely closed. This
information should assist miners in evacuating the mine.
The Panel did not specify in which escapeway the signal is to be
located. Proposed 75.352(g) specifies that it would be located in the
belt entry (alternate escapeway). Since the purpose of the signal is to
warn of a potential fire in the primary escapeway and the point-feed
regulator could be remotely closed from the surface, MSHA believes that
it is more appropriate to locate the signal on the belt side of the
regulator.
[[Page 35041]]
Section 75.371--Mine Ventilation Plan; Contents
Proposed Sec. 75.371(jj) addresses Panel Recommendation 13
regarding the approval of air velocities in the belt entry. Although
the Panel recommended minimum and maximum velocities in the belt entry,
they recognized that in certain areas of underground coal mines it may
be difficult to achieve these velocities. The Panel specifically noted
that this may occur in the outby air split near a point-feed regulator,
or where the air meets a partial obstruction like an airway
constriction at an overcast or undercast. Where the recommended
velocities cannot be achieved, the Panel recommended that the District
Manager may approve exceptions in the mine ventilation plan, dependent
upon specific mine conditions.
MSHA believes that requiring approval in the mine ventilation plan
will allow the District Manager to fully evaluate the conditions in the
mine including all aspects of the mine ventilation system. In making a
determination on whether to approve requested velocities, the District
Manager would evaluate the need for increasing fire detection
sensitivity by adjusting alert and alarm levels for high velocities or
reducing sensor spacing for low velocities.
Proposed Sec. 75.371(mm) addresses Recommendation 10. The Panel
recommended that MSHA perform regular, periodic reviews of the AMS
records at mines using air from a belt entry to ventilate working
sections to evaluate the number of occurrences of false alarms due to
diesel exhaust. In those instances where such false alarms are
excessive, the Panel recommended MSHA should require the use of
existing diesel-discriminating sensors.
Based on Agency experience, diesel exhaust contains carbon
monoxide, and can activate alerts and alarms. Under these
circumstances, these signals may not be the result of a fire, but the
result of diesel equipment operating in the area. An excessive number
of these alert and alarm signals can cause miners to become complacent
and routinely ignore them as false alarms. The benefit of diesel-
discriminating sensors is that the frequency of signals caused by
diesel engines is reduced.
Under the proposal, the District Manager could require the use of
diesel-discriminating sensors in the approved mine ventilation plan.
The proposal would require that the operator include in the ventilation
plan the locations of any diesel-discriminating sensors. The District
Manager approval of the use of these sensors would be based on mine
conditions where diesel-powered equipment is used and excessive alert
and alarm signals are caused by diesel exhaust. Since the proposal
would be applicable to all mines using belt haulage, it deletes the
reference to Sec. 75.351(e)(5), which relates to mines using air from
the belt entry to ventilate the working section.
MSHA does conduct periodic reviews of AMS records during regular
inspections of the mine. MSHA re-emphasized procedures for inspecting
an AMS in a recently revised Agency handbook which specifically
provides inspectors with guidance on evaluating the frequency of
diesel-related alert and alarm signals. (Carbon Monoxide and
Atmospheric Monitoring Systems Inspection Procedures MSHA Handbook PH-
08-V-2, February, 2008.)
Proposed Sec. 75.371(nn) addresses Panel Recommendation 8. The
Panel recommended discontinuing the use of point-type heat sensors, and
using carbon monoxide sensors for all mines using belt haulage.
Existing Sec. 75.351(m) requires that the use and length of any time
delays be approved by the District Manager in the mine ventilation plan
for mines using air from the belt entry to ventilate the working
section. Time delays may also be necessary in some mines that do not
use air from the belt entry to ventilate working sections to aid in the
reduction of false alarms. Proposed Sec. 75.1103-4 would require the
use of carbon monoxide sensors. Therefore, time delays for these mines
must also be approved in the mine ventilation plan. Accordingly, the
proposal deletes the reference to Sec. 75.351(m) since it would apply
to all mines using belt haulage.
Proposed Sec. 75.371(yy) addresses Panel Recommendation 14
regarding the location of airlock doors installed between air courses.
The Panel recommended that personnel doors along escapeways be
structured to form an airlock when the force required to open a door,
due to the pressure differential, exceeds 125 pounds.
Proposed Sec. 75.333(c)(4) would require that an airlock be
established where the air pressure differential between air courses
creates a static force exceeding 125 pounds on closed personnel doors
along escapeways. Proposed Sec. 75.371(yy) would require the operator
to submit the locations where airlock doors are installed between air
courses in the ventilation plan for approval by the District Manager.
This requirement would apply to all underground coal mines.
MSHA believes that requiring airlock doors to be approved in the
mine ventilation plan will allow the District Manager to fully evaluate
the conditions in the mine and all aspects of the mine ventilation
system.
Proposed Sec. 75.371(zz) addresses Panel Recommendation 14
regarding ventilating pressure within the primary escapeway. The Panel
recommended that primary escapeways be ventilated with intake air
preferably, and to the extent possible, the primary escapeway should
have a higher pressure than the belt entry. The proposal would require
that locations where the mine operator cannot maintain the pressure
differential from the primary escapeway to the belt entry be included
in the mine ventilation plan. This would allow the District Manager to
evaluate specific mine conditions and require additional actions or
precautions to be taken to protect the integrity of the primary
escapeway, as appropriate.
Section 75.380--Escapeways Bituminous and Lignite Mines, and 75.381--
Escapeways; Anthracite Mines
This proposal would amend paragraphs (d)(7)(v), and (vi) and (f)(1)
and add paragraphs (d)(7)(vii), (viii) and (ix) to Sec. 75.380. It
also would amend similar language in paragraphs (c)(5)(v) and (vi), and
(e) and add paragraphs (vii), (viii) and (ix) to Sec. 75.381.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 75.380(d)(7) and 75.381(c)(5) address Panel
Recommendation 15. Proposed Sec. 75.380 applies to escapeway
requirements for bituminous and lignite mines, and Sec. 75.381 applies
to escapeway requirements for anthracite mines.
Although the Panel noted with approval recent MSHA standards on
lifelines (71 FR 71430) it made two recommendations for improving
requirements for lifelines. The first was to require tactile signals to
identify impediments to travel, SCSR caches and personnel doors to
adjacent escapeways. The second was to require nationwide
standardization of all tactile signals.
The proposal includes both of these recommendations for the
following reasons. The location of personnel doors may not be easily
identifiable in smoke-filled entries, and signals would help miners
move to alternate escapeways when the primary route is impeded or
blocked against passage. Impediments to travel could cause delays and
possible injury to escaping miners. Standardized signals will reduce
the possibility of confusion in an emergency, and will provide an
additional safety benefit to miners who transfer to different mines
because they would not have to become familiar with new signal systems.
Existing Sec. Sec. 75.380(d)(7)(v) and 75.381(c)(5)(v) require
lifelines with directional indicators, signifying the
[[Page 35042]]
route of escape, placed at intervals not exceeding 100 feet. Proposed
Sec. Sec. 75.380(d)(7)(v) and 75.381(c)(5)(v) would require one cone
to be used as the directional indicator. Like the existing rule, each
cone would have to be installed so that the tapered section points
inby.
Existing Sec. Sec. 75.380(d)(7)(vi) and 75.381(c)(5)(vi) require
tactile signals be attached to the lifeline to identify the location of
SCSR caches, but do not specify the type of signal to be provided.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 75.380(d)(7)(vi) and 75.381(c)(5)(vi) require
standardization of tactile signals. Consistent with the Panel's
recommendation, the tactile feedback for SCSR storage locations would
be six back-to-back directional cones.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 75.380(d)(7)(vii) and 75.381(c)(5)(vii) are new
provisions which would require standardized tactile signals to identify
the location of personnel doors to adjacent crosscuts connecting
escapeways. Consistent with the Panel's recommendation, the proposal
would require that the tactile feedback for personnel doors be four
back-to-back directional cones.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 75.380(d)(7)(viii) and 75.381(c)(5)(viii) are
new provisions which would require standardized tactile signals to
identify the location of physical impediments in the escapeway.
Consistent with the Panel's recommendation, the proposal would require
that the tactile feedback for physical impediments would be two back-
to-back directional cones. For example, when miners are approaching an
overcast in an escapeway, two back-to-back directional cones would
alert them to prepare to encounter a set of stairs to cross the
overcast. Examples of other impediments include water sumps, track,
conveyor belts, and regulators.
Under the proposal, MSHA defines back-to-back to mean that multiple
cones are aligned so that they are in contact with one another, with
all tapered sections pointing inby. As a miner's hand passes over these
cones, the feedback for each of the recommended signals would be easily
understood.
In another rulemaking, MSHA is proposing new requirements for
refuge alternatives in underground coal mines. The Agency believes a
distinctive tactile signal should also be attached to lifelines to
identify the location of refuge alternatives. Because tactile signals
on lifelines are addressed in this proposal, to provide a comprehensive
and integrated approach for these requirements, the Agency is including
this provision in this rulemaking.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 75.380(d)(7)(ix) and 75.381(c)(5)(ix) would
require lifelines to be marked to provide tactile feedback
distinguishable from other markings to indicate the location of refuge
alternatives. The tactile feedback for a refuge alternative would be a
two-foot length of rigid spiraled coil (cork-screw style). This
distinctive signal would improve safety by alerting miners to the
location of refuge alternatives in areas of poor visibility. The
proposal also would require another line to be attached from the
lifeline to the refuge alternative. This line would be attached at the
spiraled coil on the lifeline. This line would allow miners traveling
in smoke to locate refuge alternatives along the escapeway, and return
to the lifeline if refuge access is blocked.
Each of the signals in this proposal must be distinguishable from
other markings. These signals, when integrated with escapeway drills,
will help miners understand the differences in, and significance of,
tactile signals and aid in evacuating the mine. The Agency specifically
solicits comments on alternative tactile signal markings.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 75.380(f) and 75.381(e) would require the
primary escapeway to have a higher ventilation pressure than the belt
entry. Under the proposal, the operator can submit an alternative in
the mine ventilation plan to protect the integrity of the primary
escapeway. Approval by the District Manager would be based on mine-
specific conditions. This provision would apply to all mines using belt
haulage.
In Recommendation 14, the Panel stated that primary escapeways
should be designed, constructed, and maintained in accordance with the
provisions of existing Sec. 75.333 (b)-(d) to minimize the air
leakage. The Panel also recommended that primary escapeways be
ventilated with intake air preferably and, to the extent possible, the
primary escapeway should have a higher pressure than the belt entry.
Based on Agency experience, MSHA recognizes the need to maintain the
pressure differential from the primary escapeway to the belt air
course. A higher pressure in the primary escapeway would assure that
air leakage would move from this escapeway to the belt entry. In case
of a fire in the belt entry, the primary escapeway would not become
contaminated.
The proposal would require the pressure differential to be
maintained. However, under the proposal, the operator could submit an
alternative in the mine ventilation plan to protect the integrity of
the primary escapeway. MSHA agrees with the Panel's recognition that it
is difficult to maintain the pressure differential from the intake to
the belt entry at all times. The different resistances to air flow
within the air courses will cause changes to the pressure differentials
between the adjacent entries separated by permanent ventilation
controls. At some locations, especially near working sections, pressure
differentials will often reverse between the two air courses. MSHA
experience is that these reversals are small in magnitude. However,
even low pressure differentials can allow significant leakage where
ventilation controls are not properly maintained.
There are two components to air leakage. First, the flow from one
entry to the other is caused by the pressure differential. Air will
tend to flow from high to low pressure. The other component is the
resistance to flow. A high resistance will not allow high air flow
rates even when the pressure differentials are considerable. A key to
limiting air leakage through a ventilation control is to increase the
resistance by sealing the control and its perimeter. Historically, MSHA
has identified damaged and improperly installed doors as sources of
high air leakage. Openings in stoppings to provide routing of air and
water lines, electrical conductors and other conduits must also be
sealed to minimize air leakage. When these conduits are removed,
ventilation controls must be properly repaired.
The Agency does not expect mine operators to use check curtains or
other temporary ventilation controls such as parachute stoppings to
increase the resistance in the primary escapeway in order to pressurize
the air course during normal mining. The use of such controls on a
regular basis diminishes the efficiency of the ventilation system.
Subpart L--Fire Protection
75.1103-4--Automatic Fire Sensor and Warning Device Systems;
Installation; Minimum Requirements
Proposed Sec. 75.1103-4 addresses Panel Recommendation 8. The
Panel recommended that MSHA initiate rulemaking to discontinue the use
of point-type heat sensors (PTHS) for early-warning and detection of
conveyor belt fires in all underground coal mines.
In making its recommendation, the Panel examined research comparing
the fire detection capabilities of carbon monoxide sensors and PTHS.
The Panel concluded that there are inherent inadequacies with PTHS for
reliable early-warning belt fire detection. According to the Panel's
report, carbon monoxide sensors can detect fires at an
[[Page 35043]]
earlier stage of fire development than PTHS. The Panel found the time
it took for PTHS to alarm during a fire was much longer than the time
it took carbon monoxide sensors to alarm. The Panel also found that the
location and spacing of PTHS relative to fire location could result in
fires not being detected in a timely manner.
Research and accident investigation reports on fires have
consistently shown that carbon monoxide sensors are superior to PTHS.
MSHA's accident investigation report of the Dilworth mine fire,
(MSHA,1992 Greene County, PA) revealed that carbon monoxide sensors
were superior to PTHS, where both sensors were installed in the same
belt entry. The ignition source of the fire was located nearly midway
between two heat sensors spaced at 50 feet. The fire was detected by
the carbon monoxide sensor located 1,400 feet downwind of the fire. The
fire was extinguished by miners without injury and with only little
damage in the belt entry. The heat sensors installed along the belt did
not detect the fire.
Proposed Sec. 75.1103-4 would require the use of carbon monoxide
sensors for fire detection along belt conveyors in all underground coal
mines. In addition, the proposal includes installation, maintenance,
operating and training requirements.
Proposed Sec. 75.1103-4(a) would require the use of an early-
warning fire detection system in all underground coal mines to identify
fires along the entire belt conveyor system. The proposal would remove
the requirement to identify the belt flight on which the system detects
fire. When PTHS are used for fire detection, they are designed to
identify the belt flight on which the fire occurs. Carbon monoxide
sensors provide a more precise identification of the location, to
within 1,000 feet.
For example, suppose a belt flight length of 4,800 feet is being
monitored for a fire. If a PTHS indicated a fire, the system would
identify the fire to be within an area encompassing 4,800 feet of
beltline. Using carbon monoxide sensors, the system would identify the
fire as being upwind of the sensor location and within 1,000 feet of
the sensor. This will narrow the search area for determining the source
of the alarm signal, and aid in extinguishing the fire in a more
timely, effective manner. The proposed requirement for carbon monoxide
sensors in all mines results in earlier identification of the location
of a fire and is a significant improvement in fire detection.
Proposed Sec. 75.1103-4(a)(1) would require the use of carbon
monoxide sensors to be installed at specific locations along belt
conveyors. These locations maximize the potential of early warning of a
fire in the belt entry, and are based on Agency experience with the use
of carbon monoxide sensors in underground coal mines.
Proposed Sec. 75.1103-4(a)(1)(i) would require a sensor to be
placed not more than 100 feet downwind of each belt drive unit, each
tailpiece transfer point, and each belt take-up. Under the proposal, if
the belt drive, tailpiece, and/or take-up are installed together in the
same air course, they may be monitored with one sensor located not more
than 100 feet downwind of the last component. However, if the distance
between the belt drive unit, tailpiece transfer point, and belt take-up
units is more than 100 feet, an additional sensor would be required to
monitor each of these belt conveyor components.
This requirement is intended to provide early fire detection in the
belt drive area, a potential fire source due to dust accumulations and
electrical equipment.
Proposed Sec. 75.1103-4(a)(1)(ii) would require a sensor to be
installed in the belt entry not more than 100 feet downwind of each
section loading point. Under the proposal, this sensor would monitor
the section loading point, and provide miners on the section with
warning of fire in the belt entry.
Proposed Sec. 75.1103-4(a)(1)(iii) would require that sensors be
located along the belt entry so that the spacing between sensors does
not exceed 1,000 feet. Where air velocities are less than 50 feet per
minute, spacing must not exceed 350 feet. The proposed 350-foot spacing
has been shown in NIOSH research to provide effective early warning of
a fire in the belt entry when the air velocity is 50 feet per minute or
less. The combination of sensor spacing and air velocity is required to
assure that carbon monoxide produced by a belt fire is transported to
the sensor to provide for an effective warning.
Proposed Sec. 75.1103-4(a)(1)(iv) would require sensors to be
located upwind, a distance of no greater than 50 feet from the point
where the belt air course is combined with another air course or splits
into multiple air courses. This would require placing a carbon monoxide
sensor in the belt entry just before the air stream splits to ventilate
another belt entry. Also, if two belt air splits join, this provision
would require a sensor in each air split immediately prior to joining.
These sensors would provide a more precise location of the air split
where the fire originated.
Proposed Sec. 75.1103-4(a)(2) would remove the reference to point-
type heat sensors and replace it with carbon monoxide sensors. In
proposed Sec. 75.1103-4(a)(1), MSHA would no longer accept the use of
PTHS for fire detection along belt conveyors.
Proposed Sec. 75.1103-4(a)(3) would remove the 125-foot spacing
requirement for point-type heat sensors and replace it with conforming
requirements for carbon monoxide sensor spacing. Because point-type
heat sensors would no longer be permitted, spacing for these devices
would no longer be applicable. Carbon monoxide sensors would be
required to be added when the distance from the section loading point
to the first outby sensor reaches 1,000 feet when air velocity is at
least 50 feet per minute, and 350 feet if the velocity is less than 50
feet per minute.
Proposed Sec. 75.1103-4(b) would require that sensors be installed
near the center in the upper third of the entry, in a location that
does not expose personnel working on the fire detection system to
unsafe conditions. The proposal provides that sensors must not be
located in abnormally high areas or in other locations where air flow
patterns do not permit products of combustion to be carried to the
sensors.
MSHA based this proposed requirement on the results of NIOSH
research and Agency experience with carbon monoxide sensors. This data
has shown that during both smoldering and open combustion fires, the
products of combustion stratify, leaving higher concentrations of smoke
and carbon monoxide near the mine roof. Based on this, NIOSH
recommended installing sensors near the roof of the entry to take
advantage of stratification. MSHA's experience is that when operators
do not properly position sensors, fire detection can be hindered or
delayed. For example, sensors that are positioned behind equipment or
other obstructions may not be exposed to the products of combustion
contained in the air stream, thereby impairing their ability to provide
for effective fire detection.
This provision requires sensors to be installed near the center,
and in the upper third, of the belt entry. In most cases, the safest
location for installing a sensor is from a roof bolt plate or belt
hanger located beside the belt along the walkway. This would prevent
miners from being exposed to hazards such as a moving belt when
calibrating or examining sensors.
[[Page 35044]]
Section 75.1103-5--Automatic Fire Warning Devices; Actions and Response
Proposed Sec. 75.1103-5, which has been retitled, adds
requirements for initiating warning signals and responses for
automating fire warning devices. It provides conforming changes to
Sec. 75.1103-4.
Proposed Sec. 75.1103-5(a) requires that when the carbon monoxide
level reaches 10 parts per million above the ambient level at any
sensor location, an effective warning signal must be provided at
specific locations. Consistent with MSHA's existing standards for a
warning signal to be effective, it must be seen or heard.
PTHS provide warning based on elevated temperatures, while carbon
monoxide sensors provide warning based on elevated levels of carbon
monoxide. The proposed requirement of carbon monoxide sensors
represents a significant improvement in providing early warning of a
fire in the belt entry over the use of point-type heat sensors. MSHA
experience shows that an action level at 10 parts per million above the
ambient level provides an effective warning of a fire and allows miners
the opportunity to safely evacuate the affected area. The Agency is
soliciting comments on this approach.
Proposed Sec. 75.1103-5(a) would require warning signals to be
provided at both underground work locations and on the surface. The
existing standard requires that signals be provided at either
underground work locations where miners may be endangered, or at a
manned location.
Proposed Sec. 75.1103-5(a)(1) would require effective warning
signals to be provided to working sections and other work locations
where miners may be endangered from a fire in the belt entry. Locations
where miners may be endangered would include working sections, areas
where mechanized mining equipment is being installed or removed,
permanent work locations, and other locations specified in the Mine
Emergency Evacuation and Firefighting Program of Instruction required
by Sec. 75.1502.
Proposed Sec. 75.1103-5(a)(2) retains the existing requirement
that the warning signal be provided to a manned location. The proposal
would require that the manned location be on the surface. MSHA believes
requiring that the warning be provided to a surface location will
facilitate timely and effective evacuation of miners and improve
communication with mine management. This will facilitate more effective
decision-making in a mine emergency. The proposed requirement that the
warning be provided on the surface would also allow for required
communication with local emergency response personnel, appropriate
state agencies, and MSHA. This is consistent with the Emergency
Response Plan requirement in Section 2 of the MINER Act for local
communication.
Proposed Sec. 75.1103-5(a)(2)(i) retains the requirement for
having a telephone or equivalent communication with all miners who may
be endangered.
Proposed Sec. 75.1103-5(a)(2)(ii) is new, and requires a mine map
or schematic that shows the location of sensors and the intended air
flow direction at these locations to be posted at the manned surface
location. This new provision is necessary to assure that the location
of a potential fire can be identified in a timely manner. With the use
of carbon monoxide sensors, a fire location is identified by specific
sensors. The sensor locations are most easily identifiable by using a
map or schematic. The air directions are needed to facilitate fire
fighting activities and evacuation in the event of a fire, explosion or
other emergency.
Proposed Sec. 75.1103-5(a)(3) is derived from the existing rule,
and has not been changed, except for the numbering.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 75.1103-5(d) through (h) are new provisions
which would specify responses required to signals from the automatic
fire warning devices. This proposal is consistent with requirements for
responses to AMS signals in existing Sec. 75.352. These provisions
would apply to all mines using belt haulage.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 75.1103-5(d) and (e) specify requirements for
responses to malfunction and warning signals. When a malfunction or
warning signal is received at the surface location, Sec. 75.1103-5(d)
would require that the sensor must be identified and appropriate
personnel be immediately notified. Depending upon the circumstances at
the mine, appropriate personnel may include the mine foreman, mine
electrician, or other persons responsible for maintaining the sensors.
Proposed Sec. 75.1103-5(e) would require appropriate personnel to
immediately initiate an investigation to determine the cause of the
malfunction or warning signal and take necessary corrective action.
These proposed provisions require immediate corrective actions to
assure that the appropriate responses are taken in case of an
emergency.
Proposed Sec. 75.1103-5(f) would require specific procedures be
followed in case of a warning signal. Proposed Sec. 75.1103-5(f)(1)
would require appropriate personnel to notify miners in affected
working sections, in affected areas where mechanized mining equipment
is being installed or removed, and at other locations specified in the
Sec. 75.1502 approved mine emergency evacuation and firefighting
program of instruction when a warning signal is received. This
notification is in addition to the automatic signal required in
proposed Sec. 75.1103-5(a)(1). Proposed Sec. 75.1103-5(f)(2) would
require all miners in the affected areas to be immediately withdrawn to
a safe location identified in the mine emergency evacuation and
firefighting program of instruction upon notification of a warning
signal. Under the proposal, miners who are assigned emergency response
duties do not have to be withdrawn.
The actions specified in Sec. Sec. 75.1103-5(f)(1) and (f)(2) must
be taken, unless the operator determines the source of the warning does
not present a hazard to miners. For example, if the operator knows that
the warning signal is caused by cutting and welding or calibration of a
sensor, actions would not have to be taken. MSHA believes these
proposed actions are needed to assure that the protective early-warning
capabilities of the carbon monoxide sensor result in timely action and
rapid evacuation in case of emergency.
Proposed Sec. 75.1103-5(g) would require that, if the warning
signal will be activated during calibration of sensors, personnel
manning the surface location must be notified prior to and upon
completion of calibration. The notification is also required for miners
underground in affected areas. This proposal is necessary so that
miners know that a warning signal is not a fire. This proposal would
apply only at mines where calibration of sensors would cause activation
of warning signals; many sensors have a calibration mode, where warning
signals are blocked during calibration.
Proposed Sec. 75.1103-5(h) would require that if any fire
detection component becomes inoperative, immediate action must be taken
to repair the component. This proposal would assure that repairs are
made in a timely manner so that the fire detection system will remain
capable of warning miners of a fire in the belt entry.
While repairs are being made, the belt may continue to operate if
the requirements in proposed Sec. Sec. 75.1103-5(h)(1) through (h)(6)
are met. Otherwise, the belt must be taken out of service until
necessary repairs are made.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 75.1103-5(h)(1) through (h)(3) would require
trained persons to continuously monitor or patrol the area of the mine
where inoperable sensors
[[Page 35045]]
have been identified. When only one sensor is affected, Sec. 75.1103-
5(h)(1) would permit continued belt operation when a trained person is
stationed at the sensor and monitors the air for carbon monoxide using
a hand-held detector. If two or more adjacent sensors are affected,
Sec. 75.1103-5(h)(2) would permit continued belt operation if the area
monitored by these sensors is patrolled so the area is traveled each
hour in its entirety. As an alternative under the proposal, the mine
operator could have a trained person stationed at each inoperative
sensor location. Proposed Sec. 75.1103-5(h)(3) would require the same
monitoring if the entire fire detection system becomes inoperative.
Proposed Sec. 75.1103-5(h)(4) would require the trained persons
monitoring inoperable sensors to have two-way voice communication at
intervals not to exceed 2,000 feet with the surface. The proposal would
require that carbon monoxide levels be reported to the surface at
intervals not to exceed one hour.
Proposed Sec. 75.1103-5(h)(5) would require that trained persons
monitoring under this section must immediately report to the surface
when any concentration of carbon monoxide reaches 10 parts per million
above the established ambient level, unless the operator knows that the
source of the carbon monoxide does not present a hazard to miners. As
stated previously, unless the carbon monoxide does not present a hazard
to miners, the mine operator would be required to withdraw affected
miners to the location specified in the approved Mine Emergency
Evacuation and Firefighting Program of Instruction.
Proposed Sec. 75.1103-5(h)(6) would require that handheld
detectors used to monitor the belt entry under this section have a
detection level equivalent to that of the carbon monoxide sensors.
Section 75.1103-6--Automatic Fire Sensors; Actuation of Fire
Suppression Systems
Proposed Sec. 75.1103-6 would provide that point-type heat sensors
may be used to activate fire suppression systems. Although the Panel
recommended discontinuing the use of point-type heat sensors for fire
detection, it recognized a benefit in allowing them to be used for
activating fire suppression systems. Consistent with the Panel's
recommendation, under the proposal point-type heat sensors may continue
to be used to actuate deluge-type water systems, foam generator
systems, multipurpose dry-powder systems, or other equivalent automatic
fire suppression systems.
Section 75.1103-8--Automatic Fire Sensor and Warning Device Systems;
Inspection and Test Requirements
Existing Sec. 75.1103-8 requires that the mine operator conduct
weekly inspection and annual functional testing of the fire detection
system, as well as make and retain records of the inspection and
testing. These requirements were developed for point-type heat sensors,
and do not provide adequate protection for carbon monoxide sensors.
MSHA experience has shown an examination of the carbon monoxide
sensors at least once each shift when the belts are operated as part of
a coal production shift is necessary to assure the sensors will operate
and respond as required in the event of a fire. The mine environment in
the belt entry can be harsh with potential roof falls, rock dusting,
water sprays and coal dust. All of these physical factors can cause the
carbon monoxide sensors to be compromised. Because sensors can be
vulnerable to these factors, it is important that the mine operator
examine the sensors each shift.
MSHA experience has shown annual testing of warning signals is not
sufficient to assure these critical components will operate properly in
time of emergency. Automatic fire warning system components commonly
use batteries to activate warning signals. Annual functional testing
may not identify batteries that are no longer capable of powering the
warning signals. Proper weekly functional testing has been shown to
provide assurance that properly installed batteries will activate
warning signals.
Proposed Sec. 75.1103-8(a) would require automatic fire sensor and
warning device systems to be examined at least once each shift when
belts are operated as part of a production shift, and a functional test
of the warning signals to be made at least once every seven days.
Increased frequency of examinations and functional tests of the system
would better assure the system effectively maintains its fire warning
capability so that it could provide adequate warning to miners of a
fire. The increased examinations would also alert the mine operator to
any damaged or missing components. Like the existing standard, the
proposal would require that inspection and maintenance of these systems
be completed by a qualified person.
Under the proposal, the functional test must be completed at
intervals not to exceed 7 days. MSHA expects the functional test to
verify that warning signals are effective at all locations where these
signals are provided. MSHA would expect that a functional test would
include application of carbon monoxide gas to the sensors necessary to
activate each warning signal. These functional tests are needed to
assure that the system retains its fire warning capability so that it
will provide the proper warning signal in case of emergency. The Agency
believes that the proposed examination requirements can be integrated
into required preshift and on-shift examinations under existing
Sec. Sec. 75.360 and 75.362. The examinations would identify any
problems with sensors such as improper installation, damaged sensors or
cables, and missing components.
These examination frequencies are consistent with the Agency's
current examination procedures for carbon monoxide sensors for all
mines using these sensors in lieu of point-type heat sensors. These
examinations are currently being performed at these mines, and are
included in the mine ventilation plan or a granted petition for
modification.
Like the existing rule, proposed Sec. 75.1103-8(b) requires that
the mine operator maintain a record of the functional tests. The
proposal would also require that the mine operator keep a record of the
functional tests for one year. Maintaining records for one year is
consistent with other recordkeeping requirements, and would indicate to
MSHA how warning signals operate over the course of a year. The
proposal would delete the existing requirement that a record card of
the weekly inspection be kept at each belt drive as this would no
longer be necessary.
Proposed Sec. 75.1103-8(c) would require that carbon monoxide
sensors be calibrated at intervals not to exceed 31 days according to
manufacturers' instructions. MSHA experience has shown this interval to
be an appropriate time period to assure that carbon monoxide sensors
respond effectively and reliably in the event of a fire. In addition,
the proposal would require a record of sensor calibrations to be kept
for a period of one year. The record will provide the mine operator
with information to make necessary repairs and maintain the system, and
will allow MSHA to verify that these corrective actions were taken in a
timely manner.
Subpart R--Miscellaneous
Section 75.1731--Maintenance of Belt Conveyors and Belt Conveyor
Entries
Proposed Sec. 75.1731 is new and addresses Panel Recommendations
1, 5, 6 and 14 regarding belt entry and conveyor belt maintenance. It
would
[[Page 35046]]
apply to all underground coal mines using belt haulage.
In their report, the Panel recommended that MSHA rigorously enforce
existing standards on underground conveyor belt maintenance and fire
protection, and improve inspection procedures. They also stated that
MSHA should focus on required examinations of the belt lines by mine
examiners to assure each belt is kept in good working order. The Panel
identified the following areas for increased attention by belt
examiners: Belts rubbing stands; damaged rollers; inadequate rock
dusting; and accumulations of materials. In its enforcement of conveyor
belt examinations, MSHA has traditionally focused on these and other
hazards. Proposed Sec. 75.1731 addresses areas associated with the
belt entry and would require that the operator pay special attention to
them to assure proper belt maintenance.
In its report, the Panel cited MSHA's investigation into the
Aracoma Alma Mine No. 1 (Aracoma) belt fire as evidence of inadequate
belt maintenance (MSHA Fatal Accident Report, Logan County, WV, 2007).
MSHA identified as root causes of the fire deficiencies in belt
maintenance and examinations. Prevention of belt fires is a critical
element in improving miners' safety, and proper maintenance and
examinations will reduce the likelihood of fires.
Proposed Sec. 75.1731 would require: (a) Damaged rollers and other
malfunctioning belt conveyor components to be immediately repaired or
replaced; and (b) conveyor belts to be properly aligned to prevent the
moving belt from rubbing against the support structure or other
components. In both instances, improper belt examinations could lead to
uncorrected hazards. This could result in frictional heating of
combustibles in the belt entry which could cause a fire. The proposed
provisions would require mine operators to assure that belt examiners
identify and correct hazardous conditions in the conveyor belt entry to
improve safety of miners.
Existing Sec. 75.1725(a) contains inspection and maintenance
requirements applicable to mobile and stationary machinery and
equipment, including conveyor belts. Based on its experience, MSHA does
not believe that the existing standard appropriately addresses the
Panel's concerns regarding potential hazards resulting from inadequate
examinations by belt examiners and inadequate maintenance. These
hazards are caused by misalignment of the belt, damaged rollers and
other belt components, and accumulations of non-combustibles. Proposed
Sec. Sec. 75.1731(a) and (b) specifically address these hazards.
Existing Sec. 75.400 addresses accumulation of combustible
materials, but it does not address hazards resulting from accumulation
of noncombustible materials in the belt entry. Noncombustible materials
include rock, trash, and discarded conveyor belt parts. These materials
may become potential frictional ignition sources for combustible
materials, resulting in a belt fire, or may pose tripping hazards in
the belt entry. Proposed Sec. 75.1731(c) would prohibit the
accumulation of such noncombustible materials in the belt conveyor
entry. The Agency does not intend that this provision apply to rock
dust applied in the belt entry which is used to mitigate the
accumulation of float coal dust.
Proposed Sec. 75.1731(d) would require that splicing of any
approved conveyor belt must maintain flame-resistant properties of the
belt. Some belts can be a significant source of fuel for a mine fire.
To protect miners, it is essential that any splices in the belt
maintain the fire resistant properties of the belt so that it will not
easily ignite or be a source of fuel for a fire.
MSHA recognizes the need to address splicing of the belt so that
the materials and processes used in splicing do not compromise the
flame resistant properties of the belt. Because splicing is a belt
maintenance issue, the provision is included in this section.
MSHA requests comments on the following suggested effective and
compliance dates for the final rule:
Effective dates: (following publication date of the final rule)--
Compliance dates: Each mine operator shall comply with the following
sections by the dates listed below.
1. Sec. 75.156 AMS operator qualification--2 months.
2. Sec. 46.27 Task Training Plan for AMS operators--2 months.
3. Sec. 75.333(c)(4) Airlocks--3 months.
4. Sec. 75.350(a)(2) Minimum Velocity--12 months.
5. Sec. 75.350(b) Operator Submission of Revised Ventilation Plan
for Approval for Use of Air from the Belt Entry--3 months.
6. Sec. 75.351(e)(2) Smoke Sensors--12 months after Approval.
7. Sec. Sec. 75.380 and 75.381 Lifeline Signals--6 months.
8. Sec. Sec. 75.380 and 75.381 Primary Escapeway--6 months.
9. Sec. Sec. 75.1103-4, 5, 8 Replacing PTHS--12 months.
10. Sec. 75.1731 Maintenance of belt conveyors and belt conveyor
entries--2 months.
IV. Executive Order 12866
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 requires that regulatory agencies
assess both the costs and benefits of regulations. To comply with E.O.
12866, MSHA has prepared a Preliminary Regulatory Economic Analysis
(PREA) for this proposed rule. The PREA contains supporting data and
explanation for the summary economic materials presented in this
preamble, including data on the mining industry, costs and benefits,
feasibility, small business impacts, and paperwork. The PREA is located
on MSHA's Web site at http://www.msha.gov/REGSINFO.HTM. A copy of the
PREA can be obtained from MSHA's Office of Standards, Regulations and
Variances at the address in the ADDRESSES section of the preamble. MSHA
requests comments on all the estimates of costs and benefits in this
preamble and in the PREA, and on the data and assumptions the Agency
used to develop estimates.
Under E.O. 12866, a significant regulatory action is one meeting
any of a number of specified conditions, including the following:
Having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
creating a serious inconsistency or interfering with an action of
another agency, materially altering the budgetary impact of
entitlements or the rights of entitlement recipients, or raising novel
legal or policy issues. Based on the PREA, MSHA has determined that
this proposed rule would not have an annual effect of $100 million or
more on the economy and that, therefore, it is not an economically
significant regulatory action. MSHA has concluded that the proposed
rule is otherwise significant because it raises novel legal or policy
issues.
A. Population at Risk
The proposed rule would apply to all underground coal mines in the
United States. Based on the most recent MSHA data, there were 624
underground coal mines, employing 42,207 miners, operating in the U.S.
in 2007.
B. Benefits
MSHA has qualitatively evaluated the potential safety benefits of
the provisions of this proposed rule on improved flame-resistant
conveyor belts, fire prevention and detection, and approval of the use
of air from the belt entry to ventilate the working sections in
underground coal mines. The proposal would implement Section 11
[[Page 35047]]
of the MINER Act and the recommendations of the Technical Study Panel
(Panel) on the Utilization of Belt Air and The Composition and Fire
Retardant Properties of Belt Materials in Underground Coal Mining.
The proposed provisions on improved flame-resistant conveyor belts
would reduce belt entry fires in underground coal mines and would
prevent related fatalities and injuries. From 1980 to 2007, there were
65 reportable belt entry fires. Almost all involved the conveyor belt
itself. These fires caused over two dozen injuries and three deaths--
one in 1986 at the Florence No. 1 Mine, and two in 2006 at the Alma No.
1 Mine. The Technical Study Panel noted that the number of belt fires
had decreased over the past decade, but that the rate (i.e., number of
fires per thousand mines) has remained constant. The Panel also noted
that during this same period, although underground coal production
increased so that the number of belt fires per 100 million tons
decreased, there was high variability from year to year. These proposed
provisions would prevent conveyor belt fires and, in turn, reduce
accidents, injuries, and deaths caused by conveyor belt fires.
The proposed provisions on fire prevention and detection and
approval of the use of air from the belt entry in underground coal
mines would improve miner safety. The provision addressing maintenance
of the belt conveyor and belt conveyor entry will improve safety to
miners by requiring specific associated hazards to be corrected when
found. These hazards, known to be sources of belt fire ignitions,
include damaged and missing rollers and belt misalignment. For example,
the MSHA Investigation Report of the Aracoma Alma Mine No.1 fire
determined that the fire occurred as a result of the frictional heating
due to a misaligned belt. The provision would also require that damaged
components removed from service and other non-combustibles be removed
from the belt entry. These non-combustibles are tripping hazards and
potential sources of frictional heating that could lead to fire.
The proposed requirement to replace point-type heat sensors with
carbon monoxide sensors for fire detection along belt conveyors in all
underground coal mines would enhance miner safety because carbon
monoxide sensors provide earlier fire detection. Earlier fire detection
allows miners to better address the problem and/or evacuate the area.
MSHA's research and accident investigation reports indicate that carbon
monoxide sensors are superior to point-type heat sensors. For example,
in the 1992 Dilworth Mine fire, the point-type heat sensors were no
more than 27 feet away, but the carbon monoxide sensor that actually
detected the fire was 1,400 feet downwind of the fire. Based on MSHA's
research and experience, replacing point-type heat sensors with carbon
monoxide sensors is an improvement in early fire warning detection.
Inadequate Atmospheric Monitoring System (AMS) operator training
was identified as a contributing factor in the two fatalities in the
Aracoma fire. Accident investigators found all miners assigned the
duties of an AMS operator at this mine needed additional training to
properly respond to alert, alarm, and malfunction signals generated by
the AMS. The proposed provisions for AMS operator qualification and
training would improve safety for miners by assuring that AMS operators
will have the knowledge to respond properly to AMS signals. The
qualification of miners as AMS operators would assure that MSHA has
oversight in the development and approval of the task training, and
annual retraining requirements would assure that AMS operators retain
knowledge and training needed to perform specific duties and
responsibilities. Specified training requirements would also assure
that AMS operators are familiar with underground mining systems such as
coal haulage, transportation, ventilation, and escape facilities.
Methane ignitions and explosions in the face areas can cause
serious injuries or death to miners. The proposed provision requiring a
reduced concentration of methane in the belt entry would improve safety
for miners working on sections where air from the belt entry is used to
ventilate the section. This reduced methane standard would provide a
greater methane dilution capacity in face areas, reducing the risk of a
methane ignition or explosion at the face.
The proposed provision requiring a higher ventilating pressure in
the primary escapeway than the belt entry would assure that air leakage
moves from this escapeway to the belt entry. If a fire were to occur in
the belt entry, the primary escapeway would not become contaminated
with smoke and carbon monoxide, thus maintaining the integrity of the
escapeway and providing a safe means of egress for miners.
The proposed provision requiring lifelines to be marked with
standardized tactile signals would aid miners evacuating the mine where
visibility is obscured by smoke. New standardized signals would be
required to: Identify impediments to travel within the escapeway;
identify the location of personnel doors in adjacent crosscuts
connected to adjacent escapeways; and identify the location of refuge
alternatives. Existing signals for direction of travel and SCSR storage
locations would also be standardized. Standardization of these signals
would allow for consistent understanding of the signals so that miners
who transfer between mines will not need to learn new signal systems,
and generally would reduce the possibility of confusion, delay, or
injury in an emergency.
C. Compliance Costs \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All costs have been rounded, therefore, some total costs may
deviate slightly from the sum of individual costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSHA estimated the first year costs and the yearly costs of the
proposed rule. MSHA estimated costs to mine operators on the following
proposed provisions: Improved flame-resistant conveyor belt;
installation and maintenance of carbon monoxide (CO) sensors in all
underground coal mines; improved maintenance of conveyor belts and
conveyor belt entries; atmospheric monitoring system (AMS) operator
duties; standardized lifeline signals; and other provisions such as
installation of airlocks along escapeways on personnel doors, an extra
sensor and alarm unit on point feeds in mines using belt air, and a
means to remotely close point feeds in mines using belt air where belt
entry is an alternate escapeway.
MSHA estimates that the total first year costs would be
approximately $66 million. Of the $66 million, MSHA estimates
approximately $44 million in costs for the improved flame-resistant
belts, and approximately $22 million in costs for the remaining
provisions.
MSHA estimates that the proposed rule would result in total yearly
costs of approximately $52 million. Of this amount, MSHA attributed
approximately $90,000 in yearly costs to manufacturers of conveyor
belts. Disaggregated by mine size, yearly costs would be approximately
$5 million for mine operators with fewer than 20 employees. Of the 223
mines in this size category, MSHA estimates the cost would be
approximately $21,000 per mine. Yearly costs would be approximately $43
million for mine operators with 20-500 employees. Of the 391 mines in
this size category, MSHA estimates the cost would be approximately
$110,000 per mine. Yearly costs would be approximately $4
[[Page 35048]]
million for mine operators with more than 500 employees. Of the 10
mines in this size category, MSHA estimates the costs would be
approximately $410,000 per mine.
MSHA attributed the $52 million in yearly costs of the proposed
provisions to mine operators as follows: Approximately $40.4 million
for improved flame-resistant conveyor belt; approximately $6.3 million
for installation and maintenance of CO sensors in all underground coal
mines; approximately $3.5 million for improved maintenance of conveyor
belts and conveyor belt entries; approximately $1 million for
Atmospheric Monitoring System (AMS) operator duties; approximately
$340,000 for standardized lifeline signals; and approximately $70,000
for other provisions mentioned above.
MSHA estimates the yearly cost for smoke sensors to be
approximately $460,000; however, this cost is not included in the
yearly costs of this rule because smoke sensors are not commercially
available for use in underground coal mines.
Table 1 is a summary of the approximate yearly costs of the
proposed rule by mine size and proposed provision. The Agency solicits
comments on the estimated costs of these provisions.
Table 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed provisions 1-19 employees 20-500 employees 501+ employees Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improved Flame Resistant Belt... $3.3 million...... $33.4 million..... $3.8 million...... $40.4 million.
Improved Flame Resistant Belt n/a............... n/a............... n/a............... $90,000.
(Manufacturers).
CO Sensors...................... $670,000.......... $5.5 million...... $180,000.......... $6.3 million.
Maintenance of belts and belt $750,000.......... $2.6 million...... $130,000.......... $3.5 million.
entries.
AMS Operator duties............. $57,000........... $960,000.......... $29,000........... $1 million.
Lifeline signals................ $39,000........... $290,000.......... $15,000........... $340,000.
Other provisions................ $1,300............ $63,000........... $3,700............ $68,000.
Total........................... $5 million........ $43 million....... $4 million........ $52 million.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Feasibility
MSHA has concluded that the requirements of the proposed rule would
be both technologically and economically feasible.
A. Technological Feasibility
The proposed rule does not involve activities on the frontiers of
scientific knowledge. Aside from proposed Sec. 75.351(e)(2),
compliance with the provisions of the proposed rule is technologically
feasible because the materials, equipment, and methods for implementing
these requirements currently exist.
Proposed section 75.351(e)(2) would require mines that use belt air
to ventilate working sections to install smoke sensors one year after
approval for use in underground coal mines. Smoke sensors are not
technologically feasible because these sensors are not commercially
available for use in underground coal mining. MSHA will notify the
public when smoke sensors become available and are approved for use in
underground coal mining.
B. Economic Feasibility
The yearly compliance cost of the proposed rule would be
approximately $52 million for underground coal mines, which is 0.37
percent of annual revenue of $14.1 billion for all underground coal
mines. MSHA concludes that the proposed rule would be economically
feasible for these mines because the total yearly compliance cost is
below one percent of the estimated annual revenue for all underground
coal mines.
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), MSHA
has analyzed the impact of the proposed rule on small entities. Based
on that analysis, MSHA has notified the Chief Counsel for Advocacy,
Small Business Administration (SBA), and made the certification under
the RFA at 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The factual basis for this certification is in the PREA and summarized
below.
A. Definition of a Small Mine.
Under the RFA, in analyzing the impact of the proposed rule on
small entities, MSHA must use the SBA definition for a small entity, or
after consultation with the SBA Office of Advocacy, establish an
alternative definition for the mining industry by publishing that
definition in the Federal Register for notice and comment. MSHA has not
established an alternative definition and is required to use the SBA
definition. The SBA defines a small entity in the mining industry as an
establishment with 500 or fewer employees.
MSHA has also examined the impact of this proposed rule on
underground coal mines with fewer than 20 employees, which MSHA has
traditionally referred to as ``small mines.'' These small mines differ
from larger mines not only in the number of employees, but also in
economies of scale in material produced, in the type and amount of
production equipment, and in supply inventory. Therefore, the cost of
complying with MSHA's proposed rule and the impact of the proposed rule
on small mines will also be different.
This analysis complies with the legal requirements of the RFA for
an analysis of the impact on ``small entities'' while continuing MSHA's
traditional concern for ``small mines.''
B. Factual Basis for Certification
MSHA initially evaluates the impact on small entities by comparing
the estimated compliance cost of a rule for small entities in the
sector affected by the rule to the estimated revenue of the affected
sector. When the estimated compliance cost is less than one percent of
the estimated revenue, the Agency believes it is generally appropriate
to conclude that the rule would not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. When the estimated
compliance cost exceeds one percent of revenue, MSHA investigates
whether further analysis is required.
Total underground coal production in 2007 was approximately 278
million tons for mines with 500 or fewer employees. Using the 2007
price of underground coal of $40.37 per ton, MSHA estimates that
underground coal revenue was approximately $11.2 billion for mines with
500 or fewer employees. The yearly cost of the proposed rule for mines
with 500 or fewer employees is estimated to be approximately $47.6
million, or
[[Page 35049]]
approximately $77,000 per mine. This is equal to approximately 0.42
percent of annual revenue. Since the yearly cost of the proposed rule
is less than one percent of annual revenues for small underground coal
mines, as defined by SBA, MSHA has certified that the proposed rule
would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
mining entities, as defined by SBA. However, MSHA has provided, in the
PREA accompanying this rule, a complete analysis of the cost impact on
this category of mines.
Total underground coal production in 2007 was approximately 7.7
million tons for mines with fewer than 20 employees. Using the 2007
price of underground coal of $40.37 per ton, MSHA estimates that
underground coal revenue was approximately $310.2 million for mines
with fewer than 20 employees. The yearly cost of the proposed rule for
mines with fewer than 20 employees is estimated to be $4.8 million, or
approximately $22,000 per mine. This is equal to approximately 1.54
percent of annual revenue.
The Agency has provided, in the PREA accompanying this rule, a
complete analysis of the cost impact on this category of mines. MSHA
estimates that some mines might experience costs somewhat higher than
the average per mine in its size category while others might experience
lower costs. Even though the analysis reflects a range of impacts for
different mine sizes, from 0.42 to 1.54 percent of annual revenue, the
Agency concludes that this is not a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small mines.
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
A. Summary
This proposed rule contains information collection requirements
that would affect requirements in existing paperwork packages with OMB
Control Numbers 1219-0009, 1219-0054, 1219-0066, 1219-0073, and 1219-
0088. The proposed provision on AMS operator training would modify ICR
1219-0009. Proposed provisions for fire protection would modify ICR
1219-0054. Proposed provisions that affect the information collected
for approval of flame-resistant conveyor belts would modify ICR 1219-
0066. Proposed provisions to amend the mine map would modify ICR 1219-
0073. Proposed provisions that affect the information contained in the
ventilation plan for underground coal mines would modify ICR 1219-0088.
In the first year that the rule is in effect, mine operators would
incur 3,319 burden hours with related costs of $239,331. Annually,
starting in the second year that the rule is in effect, mine operators
would incur 2,350 burden hours with related costs of $183,246. In
addition, conveyor belt manufacturers would incur 540 burden hours and
related costs of $27,000 in the first year that the rule is in effect;
270 burden hours and related costs of $13,500 in the second year that
the rule is in effect; and 170 burden hours and related costs of $8,500
in the third year that the rule is in effect.
Proposed Sec. 14.7, which would require approval holders to retain
initial sales records of conveyor belts, is considered by MSHA to be an
information collection requirement that does not result in a paperwork
burden because it is considered a part of normal business practices.
For a summary of the burden hours and related costs by proposed
provision, see the PREA accompanying this proposed rule. The PREA is
posted on MSHA's Web site at http://www.msha.gov/REGSINFO.HTM. A copy
of the PREA can be obtained from MSHA's Office of Standards,
Regulations, and Variances at the address provided in the ADDRESSES
section of this preamble.
B. Procedural Details
The information collection package has been submitted to OMB for
review under 44 U.S.C. 3504, paragraph (h) of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, as amended. A copy of the information collection package
can be obtained from the Department of Labor by electronic mail request
to [email protected] or by phone request to 202-693-4129.
MSHA requests comments to:
Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the
burden of the proposed collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
Minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses.
Comments on the information collection requirements should be sent
to both OMB and MSHA. Addresses for both offices can be found in the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble. The regulated community is not
required to respond to any collection of information unless it displays
a current, valid, OMB control number. MSHA displays OMB control numbers
in 30 CFR part 3.
VIII. Other Regulatory Analyses
A. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
MSHA has reviewed the proposed rule under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). MSHA has determined that
the proposed rule would not include any Federal mandate that may result
in increased expenditures by State, local, or tribal governments; and
it would not increase private sector expenditures by more than $100
million in any one year or significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. Accordingly, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
requires no further agency action or analysis.
B. Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999:
Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families
The proposed rule would have no effect on family well-being or
stability, marital commitment, parental rights or authority, or income
or poverty of families and children. Accordingly, Sec. 654 of the
Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999 (5 U.S.C.
601 note) requires no further agency action, analysis, or assessment.
C. Executive Order 12630: Government Actions and Interference With
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights
The proposed rule would not implement a policy with takings
implications. Accordingly, Executive Order 12630 requires no further
agency action or analysis.
D. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
The proposed rule was written to provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct and was carefully reviewed to eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguities, so as to minimize litigation and undue burden
on the Federal court system. Accordingly, the proposed rule meets the
applicable standards provided in Sec. 3 of Executive Order 12988.
E. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
The proposed rule would have no adverse impact on children.
[[Page 35050]]
Accordingly, Executive Order 13045 requires no further agency action or
analysis.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
The proposed rule would not have ``federalism implications''
because it would not ``have substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.'' Accordingly, Executive Order 13132 requires no
further agency action or analysis.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
The proposed rule would not have ``tribal implications'' because it
would not ``have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal government and Indian tribes.'' Accordingly, Executive
Order 13175 requires no further agency action or analysis.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
The proposed rule has been reviewed for its impact on the supply,
distribution, and use of energy because it applies to the coal mining
industry. Because the proposed rule would result in yearly costs of
approximately $52 million to the underground coal mining industry,
relative to annual revenues of $14.1 billion in 2007, the proposed rule
is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is not ``likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy * * * (including a shortfall in supply, price increases, and
increased use of foreign supplies).'' Accordingly, Executive Order
13211 requires no further Agency action or analysis.
I. Executive Order 13272: Proper Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking
MSHA has reviewed the proposed rule to assess and take appropriate
account of its potential impact on small businesses, small governmental
jurisdictions, and small organizations. MSHA has determined and
certified that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
IX. Proposed Rule
List of Subjects
30 CFR Part 6
Mine safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Research.
30 CFR Part 14
Mine safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
30 CFR Part 18
Mine safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
30 CFR Part 48
Education, Mine safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
30 CFR Part 75
Communications equipment, Electric power, Emergency medical
services, Explosives, Fire prevention, Mine safety and health,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: June 11, 2008.
Richard E. Stickler,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, and under the authority of
the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 as amended by the Mine
Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006, MSHA is proposing
to amend chapter I of title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations as
follows.
PART 6--TESTING AND EVALUATION BY INDEPENDENT LABORATORIES AND NON-
MSHA PRODUCT SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 6 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 957.
2. Amend Sec. 6.2 by revising the definition of ``Equivalent non-
MSHA product safety standards'' to read as follows:
Sec. 6.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Equivalent non-MSHA product safety standards. A non-MSHA product
safety standard, or group of standards, determined by MSHA to provide
at least the same degree of protection as the applicable MSHA product
approval requirements in parts 14, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 27, 33, 35, and
36 of this chapter, or which in modified form provide at least the same
degree of protection.
* * * * *
3. Amend Sec. 6.20 to revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 6.20 MSHA acceptance of equivalent non-MSHA product safety
standards.
(a) * * *
(1) Provide at least the same degree of protection as MSHA's
product approval requirements in parts 14, 18, 19, 20, 33, 35 and 36 of
this chapter; or
* * * * *
4. Add new part 14 to subchapter B chapter I, title 30 of Code of
Federal Regulations to read as follows:
PART 14--REQUIREMENTS FOR THE APPROVAL OF FLAME-RESISTANT CONVEYOR
BELTS
Subpart A--General Provisions
Sec.
14.1 Purpose and effective date for approval holders.
14.2 Definitions.
14.3 Observers at tests and evaluations.
14.4 Application procedures and requirements.
14.5 Test samples.
14.6 Issuance of approval.
14.7 Approval marking and distribution records.
14.8 Quality assurance.
14.9 Disclosure of information.
14.10 Post-approval product audit.
14.11 Revocation.
Subpart B--Technical Requirements
14.20 Flame resistance.
14.21 Laboratory-scale flame test apparatus.
14.22 Test for flame resistance of conveyor belts.
14.23 New technology.
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 957.
Subpart A--General Provisions
Sec. 14.1 Purpose and effective date for approval holders.
This part establishes the flame resistance requirements for MSHA
approval of conveyor belts for use in underground coal mines.
Applications for approval or extension of approval submitted after
[Insert date XXX days after the date of publication in the Federal
Register] must meet the requirements of this Part.
Sec. 14.2 Definitions.
The following definitions apply in this part:
Applicant. An individual or organization that manufactures or
controls the production of a conveyor belt and applies to MSHA for
approval of conveyor belt for use in underground coal mines.
Approval. A document issued by MSHA which states that a conveyor
belt has met the requirements of this part and which authorizes an
approval marking identifying the conveyor belt as approved.
Extension of approval. A document issued by MSHA which states that
a
[[Page 35051]]
change to a product previously approved by MSHA under this part meets
the requirements of this part and which authorizes the continued use of
the approval marking after the appropriate extension number has been
added.
Flame-retardant ingredient. A material that inhibits ignition or
flame propagation.
Flammable ingredient. A material that is capable of combustion.
Inert ingredient. A material that does not contribute to
combustion.
Post-approval product audit. An examination, testing, or both, by
MSHA of an approved conveyor belt selected by MSHA to determine if it
meets the technical requirements and has been manufactured as approved.
Similar conveyor belt. A conveyor belt that shares the same cover
compound, general carcass construction, and fabric type as another
approved conveyor belt.
Sec. 14.3 Observers at tests and evaluations.
Only MSHA personnel, representatives of the applicant, and other
persons agreed upon by MSHA and the applicant may be present during
tests and evaluations conducted under this part.
Sec. 14.4 Application procedures and requirements.
(a) Application address. Applications for approvals or extensions
of approval under this Part may be sent to: U.S. Department of Labor,
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Chief, Approval and
Certification Center, P.O. Box 251, Industrial Park Road, Triadelphia,
West Virginia 26059. Alternatively, applications for approval or
extensions of approval may be filed online at http://www.msha.gov or
faxed to: Chief, Mine Safety and Health Administration Approval and
Certification Center at 304-547-2044.
(b) Approval application. Each application for approval of a
conveyor belt for use in underground coal mines must include the
information below, except any information submitted in a prior approval
application need not be re-submitted, but must be noted in the
application.
(1) A technical description of the conveyor belt which includes:
(i) Trade name or identification number;
(ii) Cover compound type and designation number;
(iii) Belt thickness and thickness of top and bottom covers;
(iv) Presence and type of skim coat;
(v) Presence and type of friction coat;
(vi) Carcass construction (number of plies, solid woven);
(vii) Carcass fabric by textile type and weight (ounce per square
yard);
(viii) Presence and type of breaker or floated ply; and
(ix) The number, type, and size of cords and fabric for metal cord
belts.
(2) Formulation information on the compounds in the conveyor belt
indicated by either:
(i) Specifying each ingredient by its chemical name along with its
percentage (weight) and tolerance or percentage range; or
(ii) Specifying each flame-retardant ingredient by its chemical or
generic name with its percentage and tolerance or percentage range or
its minimum percent. List each flammable ingredient by chemical,
generic, or trade name along with the total percentage of all flammable
ingredients. List each inert ingredient by chemical, generic, or trade
name along with the total percentage of all inert ingredients.
(3) The name, address, and telephone number of the applicant's
representative responsible for answering any questions regarding the
application.
(4) Identification of any similar conveyor belt for which the
applicant already holds an approval.
(i) The MSHA assigned approval number of the conveyor belt which
most closely resembles the new one; and
(ii) An explanation of any changes from the existing approval.
(c) Extension of approval. Any change in an approved conveyor belt
from the documentation on file at MSHA that affects the technical
requirements of this part must be submitted for approval prior to
implementing the change. Each application for an extension of approval
must include:
(1) The MSHA-assigned approval number for the conveyor belt for
which the extension is sought;
(2) A description of the proposed change to the conveyor belt; and
(3) The name, address, and telephone number of the applicant's
representative responsible for answering any questions regarding the
application.
(d) MSHA will determine if testing, additional information,
samples, or material is required to evaluate an application. If the
applicant believes that flame testing is not required, a statement
explaining the rationale must be included in the application.
(e) Equivalent non-MSHA product safety standard. An applicant may
request an equivalency determination to this part under Sec. 6.20 of
this chapter, for a non-MSHA product safety standard.
(f) Fees. Fees calculated in accordance with part 5 of this chapter
must be submitted in accordance with Sec. 5.40.
Sec. 14.5 Test samples.
Upon request by MSHA, the applicant must submit 3 precut, unrolled,
flat conveyor belt samples for flame testing. Each sample must be 60
\1/4\ inches long (152.4 0.6 cm) by 9 \1/8\ inches (22.9 0.3 cm) wide.
Sec. 14.6 Issuance of approval.
(a) MSHA will issue an approval or notice of the reasons for
denying approval after completing the evaluation and testing provided
in this part.
(b) An applicant must not advertise or otherwise represent a
conveyor belt as approved until MSHA has issued an approval.
Sec. 14.7 Approval marking and distribution records.
(a) An approved conveyor belt must be marketed only under the name
specified in the approval.
(b) Approved conveyor belt must be legibly and permanently marked
with the assigned MSHA approval number for the service life of the
product. The approval marking must be at least \1/2\ inch (1.27 cm)
high, placed at intervals not to exceed 60 feet (18.3 m) and repeated
at least once every foot (0.3 m) across the width of the belt.
(c) Where the construction of a conveyor belt does not permit
marking as prescribed above, other permanent marking may be accepted by
MSHA.
(d) Applicants granted approval must maintain records of the
initial sale of each belt having an approval marking. The records must
be retained for at least 5 years following the initial sale.
Sec. 14.8 Quality assurance.
Applicants granted an approval or an extension of approval under
this part must:
(a) Flame test a sample of each batch, lot, or slab of conveyor
belts; or flame test or inspect a sample of each batch or lot of the
materials that contribute to the flame-resistance characteristic. This
will assure that the finished conveyor belt slab will meet the flame-
resistance test.
(b) Calibrate instruments used for the inspection and testing in
paragraph (a) of this section according to the instrument
manufacturer's specifications. Instruments must be calibrated using
standards set by the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
U.S. Department of Commerce or other nationally or internationally
recognized standards. The instruments used must be accurate to at least
one significant figure beyond the desired accuracy.
(c) Control production so that the conveyor belt is manufactured in
accordance with the approval
[[Page 35052]]
document. If a third party is assembling or manufacturing all or part
of an approved belt, the approval holder shall assure that the product
is manufactured as approved.
(d) Immediately notify the MSHA Approval and Certification Center
of any information that a conveyor belt has distributed that does not
meet the specifications of the approval. This notification must include
a description of the nature and extent of the problem, the locations
where the conveyor belt has been distributed, and the approval holder's
plans for corrective action.
Sec. 14.9 Disclosure of information.
(a) All proprietary information concerning product specifications
and performance submitted to MSHA by the applicant will be protected.
(b) MSHA will notify the applicant or approval holder of requests
for disclosure of information concerning its conveyor belts, and
provide an opportunity to present its position prior to any decision on
disclosure.
Sec. 14.10 Post-approval product audit.
(a) Approved conveyor belts will be subject to periodic audits by
MSHA to determine conformity with the technical requirements upon which
the approval was based. MSHA will select an approved conveyor belt to
be audited; the selected belt will be representative of that
distributed for use in mines. Upon request to MSHA, the approval-holder
may obtain any final report resulting from the audit.
(b) No more than once a year, except for cause, the approval-
holder, at MSHA's request, must make 3 samples of an approved conveyor
belt of the size specified in Sec. 14.5 available at no cost to MSHA
for an audit. If a product is not available because it is not currently
in production, the manufacturer will notify MSHA when it is available.
The approval-holder may observe any tests conducted during the audit.
(c) A conveyor belt will be subject to audit for cause at any time
MSHA believes the approval holder product is not in compliance with the
technical requirements of the approval.
Sec. 14.11 Revocation.
(a) MSHA may revoke for cause an approval issued under this part if
the conveyor belt--
(1) Fails to meet the technical requirements; or
(2) Creates a danger or hazard when used in a mine.
(b) Prior to revoking an approval, the approval-holder will be
informed in writing of MSHA's intention to revoke. The notice will--
(1) Explain the reasons for the proposed revocation; and
(2) Provide the approval-holder an opportunity to demonstrate or
achieve compliance with the product approval requirements.
(c) Upon request to MSHA, the approval-holder will be given the
opportunity for a hearing.
(d) If a conveyor belt poses an imminent danger or hazard to the
safety or health of miners, an approval may be immediately suspended
without written notice of the Agency's intention to revoke. The
suspension may continue until the revocation proceedings are completed.
Subpart B--Technical Requirements
Sec. 14.20 Flame resistance.
Conveyor belts for use in underground coal mines must be flame-
resistant and:
(a) Tested in accordance with Sec. 14.22 of this part; or
(b) Tested in accordance with an alternate test determined by MSHA
to be equivalent under 30 CFR 6.20 and 14.4(e).
Sec. 14.21 Laboratory-scale flame test apparatus.
The principal parts of the apparatus used to test for flame
resistance of conveyor belts are as follows--
(a) A horizontal test chamber 66 inches (167.6 cm) long by 18
inches (45.7 cm) square (inside dimensions) constructed from 1 inch
(2.5 cm) thick Marinite I[reg], or equivalent insulating material.
(b) A 16-gauge (0.16 cm) stainless steel duct section which tapers
over a length of at least 24 inches (61 cm) from a 20 inch (51 cm)
square cross-sectional area at the test chamber connection to a 12 inch
(30.5 cm) diameter exhaust duct, or equivalent. The interior surface of
the tapered duct section must be lined with \1/2\ inch (1.27 cm) thick
ceramic blanket insulation, or equivalent insulating material. The
tapered duct must be tightly connected to the test chamber.
(c) A U-shaped gas-fueled impinged jet burner ignition source,
measuring 12 inches (30.5 cm) long and 4 inches (10.2 cm) wide, with
two parallel rows of 6 jets each. Each jet is spaced alternately along
the U-shaped burner tube. The 2 rows of jets are slanted so that they
point toward each other and the flame from each jet impinges upon each
other in pairs. The burner fuel must be at least 98 percent methane
(technical grade) or natural gas containing at least 96 percent
combustible gases, which includes not less than 93 percent methane.
(d) A removable steel rack, consisting of 2 parallel rails and
supports that form a 7 \1/8\ inches (17.8 0.3
cm) wide by 60 \1/8\ inches (152.4 0.3 cm)
long assembly to hold a belt sample.
(1) The 2 parallel rails, with a 5 \1/8\ inches (12.7
0.3 cm) space between them, comprise the top of the rack.
The rails and supports must be constructed of slotted angle iron with
holes along the top surface.
(2) The top surface of the rack must be 8 \1/8\ inches
(20.3 0.3 cm) from the inside roof of the test chamber.
Sec. 14.22 Test for flame resistance of conveyor belts.
(a) Test procedures. The test must be conducted in the following
sequence using a flame test apparatus meeting the specifications of
Sec. 14.21:
(1) Lay three samples of the belt, 60 \1/4\ inches
(152.4 0.6 cm) long by 9 \1/8\ inches (22.9
0.3 cm) wide, flat at a temperature of 70 10
[deg]Fahrenheit (21 5 [deg]Centigrade) for at least 24
hours prior to the test;
(2) For each of three tests, place one belt sample with the load-
carrying surface facing up on the rails of the rack so that the sample
extends 1 \1/8\ inch (2.5 0.3 cm) beyond the
front of the rails and 1 \1/8\ inch (2.5 0.3
cm) from the outer lengthwise edge of each rail;
(3) Fasten the sample to the rails of the rack with steel washers
and cotter pins. The cotter pins shall extend at least \3/4\ inch (1.9
cm) below the rails. Equivalent fasteners may be used. Make a series of
5 holes approximately \9/32\ inch (0.7 cm) in diameter along both edges
of the belt sample, starting at the first rail hole within 2 inches
(5.1 cm) from the front edge of the sample. Make the next hole 5 \1/4\ inches (12.7 0.6 cm) from the first, the
third hole 5 \1/4\ inches (12.7 0.6 cm) from
the second, the fourth hole approximately midway along the length of
the sample, and the fifth hole near the end of the sample. After
placing a washer over each sample hole, insert a cotter pin through the
hole and spread it apart to secure the sample to the rail;
(4) Center the rack and sample in the test chamber with the front
end of the sample 6 \1/2\ inches (15.2 1.27
cm) from the entrance;
(5) Measure the airflow with a 4-inch (10.2 cm) diameter vane
anemometer, or an equivalent device, placed on the centerline of the
belt sample 12 \1/2\ inches (30.5 1.27 cm)
from the chamber entrance. Adjust the airflow passing through the
chamber to 200 20 ft/min (61 6 m/min);
(6) Before starting the test on each sample, the inner surface
temperature of the chamber roof measured at points 6
[[Page 35053]]
\1/2\, 30 \1/2\, and 60 \1/2\
inches (15.2 1.27, 76.2 1.27, and 152.4
1.27 cm) from the front entrance of the chamber must not
exceed 95 [deg]Fahrenheit (35 [deg]Centigrade) at any of these points
with the specified airflow passing through the chamber. The temperature
of the air entering the chamber during the test on each sample must not
be less than 50 [deg]Fahrenheit (10 [deg] Centigrade);
(7) Center the burner in front of the sample's leading edge with
the plane, defined by the tips of the burner jets, \3/4\
\1/8\ inch (1.9 0.3 cm) from the front edge of the belt;
(8) With the burner lowered away from the sample, set the gas flow
at 1.2 0.1 standard cubic feet per minute (SCFM) (34
2.8 liters per minute) and then ignite the gas burner.
Maintain the gas flow to the burner throughout the 5 to 5.1 minute
ignition period;
(9) After applying the burner flame to the front edge of the sample
for a 5 to 5.1 minute ignition period, lower the burner away from the
sample and extinguish the burner flame;
(10) After completion of each test, determine the undamaged portion
across the entire width of the sample. Blistering without charring does
not constitute damage.
(b) Acceptable performance. Each tested sample must exhibit an
undamaged portion across its entire width.
(c) MSHA may modify the procedures of the flammability test for
belts constructed of thicknesses more than \3/4\ inch (1.9 cm).
Sec. 14.23 New technology.
MSHA may approve a conveyor belt that incorporates technology for
which the requirements of this part are not applicable if the Agency
determines that the conveyor belt is as safe as those which meet the
requirements of this part.
PART 18--ELECTRIC MOTOR-DRIVEN MINE EQUIPMENT AND ACCESSORIES
5. The authority citation for part 18 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 957, 961.
Sec. 18.1 [Amended]
6. Section 18.1 is amended by revising the phrase ``hoses and
conveyor belts'' to read ``hoses''.
Sec. 18.2 [Amended]
7. Section 18.2 is amended by revising the phrase ``hose or
conveyor belt'' to read ``hose'' in the definitions of ``Acceptance'',
``Acceptance Marking'', and ``Applicant'' and removing the definition
for ``Fire-resistant''.
Sec. 18.6 [Amended]
8. Section 18.6 is amended as follows:
a. Paragraph (a)(1) is amended by revising the phrase ``hose or
conveyor belt'' to read ``hose''.
b. Paragraph (c) is removed and reserved.
c. Paragraph (i) is amended by revising the phrase ``hose or
conveyor belt'' to read ``hose'' and removing the words ``conveyor
belt--a sample of each type 8 inches long cut across the entire width
of the belt''.
Sec. 18.9 [Amended]
9-11. Section 18.9(a) is amended by revising the phrase ``hose or
conveyor belt'' to read ``hose''.
Sec. 18.65 [Amended]
12. Section 18.65 is amended by revising the phrase in the heading,
``Flame test of conveyor belting and hose'' to read ``Flame test of
hose'' and by removing and reserving paragraph (a)(1) and removing and
reserving paragraph (f)(1).
PART 48--TRAINING AND RETRAINING OF MINERS
13. The authority citation for part 48 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811, 825.
Subpart B--Training and Retraining of Miners Working at Surface
Mines and Surface Areas of Underground Mines
14. Amend Sec. 48.27 to revise the first sentence in paragraph (a)
to read as follows:
Sec. 48.27 Training of miners assigned to a task in which they have
had no previous experience; minimum courses of instruction.
(a) Miners assigned to new work tasks as mobile equipment
operators, drilling machine operators, haulage and conveyor systems
operators, ground control machine operators, AMS operators, and those
in blasting operations shall not perform new work tasks in these
categories until training prescribed in this paragraph and paragraph
(b) of this section has been completed.* * *
* * * * *
PART 75--MANDATORY SAFETY STANDARDS--UNDERGROUND COAL MINES
Subpart B--Qualified and Certified Persons
15. The authority citation for part 75 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811.
16. Section 75.156 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 75.156 AMS operator, qualifications.
(a) To be qualified as an AMS operator, a person shall be provided
with task training on duties and responsibilities at each mine where an
AMS operator is employed in accordance with the mine operator's
approved Part 48 training plan.
(b) An AMS operator must be able to demonstrate to an authorized
representative of the Secretary that he/she is qualified to perform in
the assigned position.
Subpart D--Ventilation
17. In Sec. 75.333, paragraph (c)(4) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 75.333 Ventilation controls.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(4) An airlock shall be established where the air pressure
differential between air courses creates a static force exceeding 125
pounds on closed personnel doors along escapeways.
* * * * *
18. In Sec. 75.350, paragraphs (a)(2), (b) introductory text,
(b)(3), and (d)(1) are revised, and (b)(7), (b)(8), and (d)(7) are
added to read as follows:
Sec. 75.350 Belt air course ventilation.
(a) * * *
(2) Effective [insert date one year after date of publication of
the final rule in the Federal Register], unless otherwise approved by
the District Manager in the mine ventilation plan, the air velocity in
the belt entry must be at least 50 feet per minute. Air velocities must
be compatible with all fire detection systems and fire suppression
systems used in the belt entry.
(b) The use of air from a belt air course to ventilate a working
section or an area where mechanized mining equipment is being installed
or removed shall be permitted only when evaluated and approved by the
District Manager in the mine ventilation plan. The mine operator must
provide justification in the plan that the use of air from a belt entry
would afford at least the same measure of protection where belt haulage
entries are not used to ventilate working places. In addition, the
following requirements must be met:
* * * * *
(3)(i) The average concentration of respirable dust in the belt air
course, when used as a section intake air course, must be maintained at
or below 1.0 mg/m\3\.
(ii) Where miners on the working section are on a reduced standard
below
[[Page 35054]]
1.0 mg/m\3\, the average concentration of respirable dust in the belt
entry must be at or below the lowest applicable respirable dust
standard on that section.
(iii) A permanent designated area (DA) for dust measurements must
be established at a point no greater than 50 feet upwind from the
section loading point in the belt entry when the belt air flows over
the loading point or no greater than 50 feet upwind from the point
where belt air is mixed with air from another intake air course near
the loading point. The DA must be specified and approved in the
ventilation plan.
* * * * *
(7) The air velocity in the belt entry must be at least 100 feet
per minute. When requested by the mine operator, the District Manager
may approve lower velocities in the ventilation plan based on specific
mine conditions.
(8) The air velocity in the belt entry must not exceed 1,000 feet
per minute. When requested by the mine operator, the District Manager
may approve higher velocities in the ventilation plan based on specific
mine conditions.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) The air current that will pass through the point-feed regulator
must be monitored for carbon monoxide or smoke at a point within 50
feet upwind of the point-feed regulator. A second point must be
monitored 1,000 feet upwind of the point-feed regulator unless the mine
operator requests a lesser distance be approved by the District Manager
in the mine ventilation plan based on mine specific conditions;
* * * * *
(7) Where point-feeding air from a primary escapeway to a belt
entry designated as an alternate escapeway, point-feed regulators must
be equipped with a means to remotely close the regulator or any other
means to isolate the two escapeways. The AMS operator, after
consultation with the responsible person and section foreman, must be
capable of performing this function from the designated surface
location.
19. Paragraph (b)(2), (e), and (q) of Sec. 75.351 are revised to
read as follows:
Sec. 75.351 Atmospheric monitoring systems.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) The mine operator must designate an AMS operator to monitor and
promptly respond to all AMS signals. The AMS operator must have as a
primary duty the responsibility to monitor the malfunction, alert and
alarm signals of the AMS, and to notify appropriate personnel of these
signals.
* * * * *
(e) Location of sensors-belt air course.
(1) In addition to the requirements of paragraph (d) of this
section, any AMS used to monitor belt air courses under Sec. 75.350(b)
must have approved sensors to monitor for carbon monoxide at the
following locations:
(i) At or near the working section belt tailpiece in the air stream
ventilating the belt entry. In longwall mining systems the sensor must
be located upwind in the belt entry at a distance no greater than 150
feet from the mixing point where intake air is mixed with the belt air
at or near the tailpiece;
(ii) No more than 50 feet upwind from the point where the belt air
course is combined with another air course or splits into multiple air
courses;
(iii) At intervals not to exceed 1,000 feet along each belt entry.
However, in areas along each belt entry where air velocities are
between 50 and 100 feet per minute, spacing of sensors must not exceed
500 feet. In areas along each belt entry where air velocities are less
than 50 feet per minute, the sensor spacing must not exceed 350 feet;
(iv) Not more than 100 feet downwind of each belt drive unit, each
tailpiece transfer point, and each belt take-up. If the belt drive,
tailpiece, and/or take-up for a single transfer point are installed
together in the same air course, and the distance between the units is
less than 100 feet, they may be monitored with one sensor downwind of
the last component. If the distance between the units exceeds 100 feet,
additional sensors are required downwind of each belt drive unit, each
tailpiece transfer point, and each belt take-up; and
(v) At other locations in any entry that is part of the belt air
course as required and specified in the mine ventilation plan.
(2) Smoke sensors must be installed to monitor the belt entry under
Sec. 75.350(b) at the following locations:
(i) At or near the working section belt tailpiece in the air stream
ventilating the belt entry. In longwall mining systems the sensor must
be located upwind in the belt entry at a distance no greater than 150
feet from the mixing point where intake air is mixed with the belt air
at or near the tailpiece;
(ii) Not more than 100 feet downwind of each belt drive unit, each
tailpiece transfer point, and each belt take-up. If the belt drive,
tailpiece, and/or take-up for a single transfer point are installed
together in the same air course, and the distance between the units is
less than 100 feet, they may be monitored with one sensor downwind of
the last component. If the distance between the units exceeds 100 feet,
additional sensors are required downwind of each belt drive unit, each
tailpiece transfer point, and each belt take-up; and
(iii) At intervals not to exceed 3,000 feet along each belt entry.
(iv) This provision shall be effective one year after the Secretary
has determined that a smoke sensor is available to reliably detect fire
in underground coal mines.
* * * * *
(q) Training.
(1) All AMS operators must be trained annually in the proper
operation of the AMS. This training must include the following
subjects:
(i) Familiarity with underground mining systems;
(ii) Basic atmospheric monitoring system requirements;
(iii) The mine emergency evacuation and firefighting program of
instruction;
(iv) The mine ventilation system including planned air directions;
(v) Appropriate response to alert, alarm and malfunction signals;
(vi) Use of mine communication systems including emergency
notification procedures; and
(vii) AMS recordkeeping requirements.
(2) At least once every six months, all AMS operators must travel
to all working sections.
(3) A record of the content of training, the person conducting the
training, and the date the training was conducted, must be maintained
at the mine for at least two years by the mine operator.
* * * * *
20. Section 75.352 is amended by revising paragraph (f) and by
adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 75.352 Actions in response to AMS malfunction, alert, or alarm
signals.
* * * * *
(f) If the minimum air velocity is not maintained when required
under Sec. 75.350(b)(7), immediate action must be taken to return the
ventilation system to proper operation. While the ventilation system is
being corrected, operation of the belt may continue only while a
trained person(s) patrols and continuously monitors for carbon monoxide
or smoke as set forth in Sec. Sec. 75.352(e)(3) through (7), so that
the affected areas will be traveled each hour in their entirety.
(g) The AMS shall automatically provide both a visual and audible
signal in the belt entry at the point-feed regulator location, at
affected sections, and at the designated surface location when carbon
monoxide concentrations reach:
(1) The alert level at both point-feed intake monitoring sensors;
or
(2) The alarm level at either point-feed intake monitoring sensor.
[[Page 35055]]
21. Section 75.371 is amended by revising paragraphs (jj), (mm),
(nn), and by adding paragraphs (yy) and (zz) to read as follows:
Sec. 75.371 Mine ventilation plan; contents.
* * * * *
(jj) The locations and approved velocities at those locations where
air velocities in the belt entry are above or below the limits set
forth in Sec. 75.350(a)(2) or Sec. Sec. 75.350(b)(7) and
75.350(b)(8).
* * * * *
(mm) The location of any diesel-discriminating, and additional
carbon monoxide or smoke sensors installed in the belt air course.
(nn) The length of the time delay or any other method used to
reduce the number of non-fire related alert and alarm signals from
carbon monoxide sensors.
* * * * *
(yy) The locations where airlock doors are installed between air
courses.
(zz) The locations where the pressure differential cannot be
maintained from the primary escapeway to the belt entry.
22. Section 75.380 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(7)(v) and
(vi) and (f)(1) and adding (d)(7)(vii), (viii) and (ix) to read as
follows:
Sec. 75.380 Escapeways; bituminous and lignite mines.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(7) * * *
(v) Equipped with one directional indicator cone, signifying the
route of escape, placed at intervals not exceeding 100 feet. Cones
shall be installed so that the tapered section points in by;
(vi) Securely attached to and marked to provide tactile feedback
indicating the location of any SCSR storage locations in the
escapeways. The tactile feedback for SCSR storage locations shall be
six back-to-back directional cones;
(vii) Marked to provide tactile feedback distinguishable from other
markings to indicate the location of readily accessible personnel doors
installed in adjacent crosscuts connecting escapeways. The tactile
feedback for personnel doors shall be four back-to-back directional
cones;
(viii) Marked to provide tactile feedback distinguishable from
other markings to indicate the location of physical impediments in the
escapeway. The tactile feedback for physical impediments shall be two
back-to-back directional cones; and
(ix) Marked to provide tactile feedback distinguishable from other
markings to indicate the location of refuge alternatives. The tactile
feedback for a refuge alternative location shall be a two-foot length
of rigid spiraled coil (cork-screw style). Another line must be
attached from the lifeline to the refuge alternative.
* * * * *
(f) Primary escapeway. (1) One escapeway that is ventilated with
intake air shall be designated as the primary escapeway. The primary
escapeway shall have a higher ventilation pressure than the belt entry
unless the mine operator submits an alternative in the mine ventilation
plan to protect the integrity of the primary escapeway, based on mine
specific conditions, which is approved by the District Manager.
* * * * *
23. Section 75.381 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(5)(v) and
(vi) and (e), and adding (c)(5)(vii), (viii) and (ix) to read as
follows:
Sec. 75.381 Escapeways; anthracite mines.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(5) * * *
(v) Equipped with one directional indicator cone, signifying the
route of escape, placed at intervals not exceeding 100 feet. Cones
shall be installed so that the tapered section points in by;
(vi) Securely attached to and marked to provide tactile feedback
indicating the location of any SCSR storage locations in the
escapeways. The tactile feedback for SCSR storage locations shall be
six back-to-back directional cones;
(vii) Marked to provide tactile feedback distinguishable from other
markings to indicate the location of readily accessible personnel doors
installed in adjacent crosscuts connecting escapeways. The tactile
feedback for personnel doors shall be four back-to-back directional
cones;
(viii) Marked to provide tactile feedback distinguishable from
other markings to indicate the location of physical impediments in the
escapeway. The tactile feedback for physical impediments shall be two
back-to-back directional cones; and
(ix) Marked to provide tactile feedback distinguishable from other
markings to indicate the location of refuge alternatives. The tactile
feedback for a refuge alternative location shall be a two-foot length
of rigid spiraled coil (cork-screw style). Another line must be
attached from the lifeline to the refuge alternative.
* * * * *
(e) Primary escapeway. One escapeway that shall be ventilated with
intake air shall be designated as the primary escapeway. The primary
escapeway shall have a higher ventilation pressure than the belt entry
unless the mine operator submits an alternative in the mine ventilation
plan to protect the integrity of the primary escapeway, based on mine
specific conditions, which is approved by the District Manager.
* * * * *
Subpart L--Fire Protection
24. Section 75.1103-4 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b)
to read as follows:
Sec. 75.1103-4 Automatic fire sensor and warning device systems;
installation; minimum requirements.
(a) Effective [insert date one year after date of publication of
the final rule in the Federal Register], automatic fire sensor and
warning device systems that use carbon monoxide sensors shall provide
identification of fire along all belt conveyors.
(1) Carbon monoxide sensors shall be installed at the following
locations:
(i) Not more than 100 feet downwind of each belt drive unit, each
tailpiece transfer point, and each belt take-up. If the belt drive,
tailpiece, and/or take-up for a single transfer point are installed
together in the same air course, and the distance between the units is
less than 100 feet, they may be monitored with one sensor downwind of
the last component. If the distance between the units exceeds 100 feet,
additional sensors are required downwind of each belt drive unit, each
tailpiece transfer point, and each belt take-up;
(ii) Not more than 100 feet downwind of each section loading point;
(iii) Along the belt entry so that the spacing between sensors does
not exceed 1,000 feet. Where air velocities are less than 50 feet per
minute, spacing must not exceed 350 feet; and
(iv) No more than 50 feet upwind from the point where the belt air
course is combined with another air course or splits into multiple air
courses.
(2) Where used, sensors responding to radiation, smoke, gases, or
other indications of fire, shall be spaced at regular intervals to
provide protection equivalent to carbon monoxide sensors, and installed
within the time specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
(3) When the distance from the tailpiece at loading points to the
first outby sensor reaches the spacing requirements in Sec. 75.1103-
4(a)(1)(iii), an additional sensor shall be installed
[[Page 35056]]
and put in operation within 24 production shift hours. When sensors of
the kind described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section are used, such
sensor shall be installed and put in operation within 24 production
shift hours after the equivalent distance which has been established
for the sensor from the tailpiece at loading points to the first outby
sensor is first reached.
(b) Automatic fire sensor and warning device systems shall be
installed so as to minimize the possibility of damage from roof falls
and the moving belt and its load. Sensors must be installed near the
center in the upper third of the entry, in a manner that does not
expose personnel working on the system to unsafe conditions. Sensors
must not be located in abnormally high areas or in other locations
where air flow patterns do not permit products of combustion to be
carried to the sensors.
* * * * *
25. The section heading and paragraph (a) of Sec. 75.1103-5 is
revised and paragraphs (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h) are added to read as
follows:
Sec. 75.1103-5 Automatic fire warning devices; actions and response.
(a) When the carbon monoxide level reaches 10 parts per million
above the established ambient level at any sensor location, automatic
fire sensor and warning device systems shall upon activation provide an
effective warning signal at the following locations:
(1) At working sections and other work locations where miners may
be endangered from a fire in the belt entry.
(2) At a manned surface location where personnel have an assigned
post of duty. The manned surface location must have:
(i) A telephone or equivalent communication with all miners who may
be endangered and
(ii) A map or schematic that shows the locations of sensors, and
the intended air flow direction at these locations. This map or
schematic must be updated within 24 hours of any change in this
information.
(3) The automatic fire sensor and warning device system shall be
monitored for a period of 4 hours after the belt is stopped, unless an
examination for hot rollers and fire is made as prescribed in Sec.
75.1103-4(e).
* * * * *
(d) When a malfunction or warning signal is received at the manned
surface location, the sensors that are activated must be identified and
appropriate personnel immediately notified.
(e) Upon notification of a malfunction or warning signal,
appropriate personnel must immediately initiate an investigation to
determine the cause of the malfunction or warning signal and take the
required actions set forth in paragraph (f) of this section.
(f) If any sensor indicates a warning, the following actions must
be taken unless the mine operator determines that the signal does not
present a hazard to miners:
(1) Appropriate personnel must notify miners in affected working
sections, in affected areas where mechanized mining equipment is being
installed or removed, and at other locations specified in the approved
mine emergency evacuation and firefighting program of instruction; and
(2) All miners in the affected areas, unless assigned emergency
response duties, must be immediately withdrawn to a safe location
identified in the mine emergency evacuation and firefighting program of
instruction.
(g) If the warning signal will be activated during calibration of
sensors, personnel manning the surface location must be notified prior
to and upon completion of calibration. Miners on affected working
sections, areas where mechanized mining equipment is being installed or
removed, or other areas designated in the approved emergency evacuation
and firefighting program of instruction must be notified at the
beginning and completion of calibration.
(h) If any fire detection component becomes inoperative, immediate
action must be taken to repair the component. While repairs are being
made, operation of the belt may continue if the following requirements
are met:
(1) If one sensor becomes inoperative, a trained person must
continuously monitor for carbon monoxide at the inoperative sensor;
(2) If two or more adjacent sensors become inoperative, trained
persons must patrol and continuously monitor the affected areas for
carbon monoxide so that they will be traveled each hour in their
entirety. Alternatively, a trained person must be stationed at each
inoperative sensor to monitor for carbon monoxide;
(3) If the complete fire detection system becomes inoperative,
trained persons must patrol and continuously monitor the affected areas
for carbon monoxide so that they will be traveled each hour in their
entirety;
(4) Trained persons who conduct monitoring under this section must
have two-way voice communication capability, at intervals not to exceed
2,000 feet, and must report carbon monoxide concentrations to the
surface at intervals not to exceed one hour;
(5) Trained persons who conduct monitoring under this section must
immediately report to the surface, any concentration of carbon monoxide
that reaches 10 parts per million above the established ambient level,
unless the mine operator knows that the source of the carbon monoxide
does not present a hazard to miners; and
(6) Handheld detectors used to monitor the belt entry under this
section must have a detection level equivalent to that of the system's
carbon monoxide sensors.
26. Section 75.1103-6 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 75.1103-6 Automatic fire sensors; actuation of fire suppression
systems.
Point-type heat sensors or automatic fire sensor and warning device
systems may be used to actuate deluge-type water systems, foam
generator systems, multipurpose dry-powder systems, or other equivalent
automatic fire suppression systems.
27. Section 75.1103-8 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 75.1103-8 Automatic fire sensor and warning device systems;
inspection and test requirements.
(a) Automatic fire sensor and warning device systems shall be
examined at least once each shift when belts are operated as part of a
production shift. A functional test of the warning signals shall be
made at least once every seven days. Inspection and maintenance of such
systems shall be by a qualified person.
(b) A record of the functional test conducted in accordance with
paragraph (a) of this section shall be maintained by the operator and
kept for a period of one year.
(c) Sensors shall be calibrated at intervals not to exceed 31 days
in accordance with the manufacturer's calibration instructions. A
record of the sensor calibrations shall be maintained by the operator
and kept for a period of one year.
28. Section 75.1108 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 75.1108 Approved conveyor belts.
(a) Until [insert date one year after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register] conveyor belts shall be:
(1) Approved under Part 14 of this chapter; or
(2) Accepted under Sec. 18.65 of this chapter.
(b) Effective [insert date one year after date of publication of
final rule in the Federal Register] all conveyor belts purchased for
use in underground coal
[[Page 35057]]
mines shall be approved under Part 14 of this chapter.
Sec. 75.1108-1 [Removed]
29. Remove Sec. 75.1108-1.
Subpart R--Miscellaneous
30. Section 75.1731 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 75.1731 Maintenance of belt conveyors and belt conveyor entries.
(a) Damaged rollers and other malfunctioning belt conveyor
components must be immediately repaired or replaced.
(b) Conveyor belts must be properly aligned to prevent the moving
belt from rubbing against the structure or components.
(c) Noncombustible materials shall not be allowed to accumulate in
the belt conveyor entry.
(d) Splicing of any approved conveyor belt must maintain flame-
resistant properties of the belt.
[FR Doc. E8-13631 Filed 6-18-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-43-P