|
|
|
MSHA
Final Rules
Flame-Resistant Conveyor Belt, Fire Prevention and Detection, and Use of Air From the Belt Entry
[ 12/31/2008]
[ PDF]
FR Doc E8-30639
[Federal Register: December 31, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 251)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 80579-80616]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr31de08-14]
[[Page 80579]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Labor
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mine Safety and Health Administration
30 CFR Parts 6, 14, 18, et al.
Flame-Resistant Conveyor Belt, Fire Prevention and Detection, and Use
of Air From the Belt Entry; Final Rule
[[Page 80580]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration
30 CFR Parts 6, 14, 18, 48, and 75
RIN 1219-AB59
Flame-Resistant Conveyor Belt, Fire Prevention and Detection, and
Use of Air From the Belt Entry
AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule addresses the recommendations of the Technical
Study Panel (Panel) on the Utilization of Belt Air and the Composition
and Fire Retardant Properties of Belt Materials in Underground Coal
Mining. The Panel was established under Section 11 of the Mine
Improvement and New Emergency Response (MINER) Act of 2006. The final
rule is consistent with the Panel's recommendations and includes
requirements for: Flame-resistant conveyor belts; training Atmospheric
Monitoring System operators; levels of respirable dust in belt entries;
airlocks along escapeways; minimum and maximum air velocities; approval
for the use of air from the belt entry to ventilate working sections;
monitoring point-feed regulators; smoke sensors; standardized tactile
signals on lifelines; replacing point-type heat sensors with carbon
monoxide sensors; and belt conveyor and belt entry maintenance.
DATES: Effective Date: The final rule is effective on December 31,
2008.
Compliance Dates: Details are in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia W. Silvey at
silvey.patricia@dol.gov (e-mail), (202) 693-9440 (Voice), or (202) 693-
9441 (Fax).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Compliance Dates
Each mine operator shall comply with the following sections by the
dates listed below.
1. Sec. 48.27(a) and Sec. Sec. 75.156(a), 75.350(b), and 75.1731
by March 2, 2009.
2. Sec. 75.333(c)(4) by March 31, 2009.
3. Sec. Sec. 75.380(d)(7), 75.380(f), 75.381(e)(5), and 75.381(f)
by June 30, 2009.
4. Sec. Sec. 75.350(a)(2), 75.351(e)(2), 75.1103-4(a), 75.1108(a),
and 75.1108(b) December 31, 2009.
5. Sec. 75.1108(c) by December 31, 2018.
The outline of the final rule is as follows:
I. Introduction
II. Statutory and Rulemaking Background
III. Section-by-Section Analysis
A. Flame-Resistant Conveyor Belt
1. General
2. Discussion of Final Rule
3. Conforming Amendments
B. Fire Prevention and Detection and Approval of the Use of Air
From the Belt Entry To Ventilate Working Sections
1. General
2. Discussion of Final Rule
IV. Regulatory Economic Analysis
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Population-at-Risk
C. Benefits
D. Compliance Costs
V. Feasibility
A. Technological Feasibility
B. Economic Feasibility
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)
A. Definition of a Small Mine
B. Factual Basis for Certification
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
A. Summary
B. Procedural Details
VIII. Other Regulatory Considerations
A. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
B. Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999:
Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families
C. Executive Order 12630: Government Actions and Interference
With Constitutionally Protected Property Rights
D. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
E. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. Executive Order 13272: Proper Consideration of Small Entities
in Agency Rulemaking
IX. Final Rule
I. Introduction
This final rule addresses the recommendations of the Technical
Study Panel (Panel), which was established under Section 11 of the
MINER Act. The Secretary of Labor chartered the Panel on December 22,
2006 (71 FR 77069).
On December 20, 2007, the Panel issued its final report, which
included the following 20 recommendations passed by unanimous vote:
Recommendation 1--Conveyor belt flammability testing and
approval;
Recommendation 2--Other belt tests;
Recommendation 3--Improved fire resistance standards for
all underground coal mines;
Recommendation 4--Coordinating belt testing with other
countries;
Recommendation 5--Belt entry and conveyor belt
maintenance;
Recommendation 6--Special requirements for the use of belt
air;
Recommendation 7--Belt air approval recommendation;
Recommendation 8--Discontinuing point-type heat sensors;
Recommendation 9--Smoke sensors;
Recommendation 10--Use of diesel-discriminating sensors;
Recommendation 11--Review of AMS records;
Recommendation 12--AMS operator training certification;
Recommendation 13--Minimum and maximum air velocities;
Recommendation 14--Escapeways and leakage;
Recommendation 15--Lifelines;
Recommendation 16--Point-feeding;
Recommendation 17--Respirable dust;
Recommendation 18--Mine methane;
Recommendation 19--Inspections; and
Recommendation 20--Research.
A copy of the Panel's report is available on MSHA's Web site at:
http://www.msha.gov/beltair/BeltAirFinalReport122007.pdf.
The final rule is based on the Panel's recommendations, Agency data
and experience, and comments and testimony received during the
rulemaking process. MSHA is providing delayed compliance dates for some
requirements in the final rule for mine operators to have adequate time
to comply.
II. Statutory and Rulemaking Background
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-161,
December 26, 2007) requires the Secretary to publish regulations,
consistent with the recommendations of the Panel, to require that:
[i]n any coal mine * * * belt haulage entries not be used to
ventilate active working places without prior approval from the
Assistant Secretary. Further, a mine ventilation plan incorporating
the use of air coursed through belt haulage entries to ventilate
active working places shall not be approved until the Assistant
Secretary has reviewed the elements of the plan related to the use
of belt air and has determined that the plan at all times affords at
least the same measure of protection where belt haulage entries are
not used to ventilate working places.
[[Page 80581]]
The regulations must be finalized by December 31, 2008.
Based on the Panel's recommendations, MSHA published a proposed
rule on Safety Standards Regarding the Recommendations of the Technical
Study Panel on the Utilization of Belt Air and the Composition and Fire
Retardant Properties of Belt Materials in Underground Coal Mining in
the Federal Register on June 19, 2008 (73 FR 35026). On that same date,
MSHA published a Request for Information (RFI) in the Federal Register
on criteria for testing the toxicity and density of smoke produced from
burning conveyor belt or similar materials (73 FR 35057).
The Agency will review relevant information received on the RFI and
make a determination on appropriate regulatory action.
The Agency held four public hearings on: August 19, 2008 in Salt
Lake City, UT; August 21, 2008 in Lexington, KY; August 26, 2008 in
Charleston, WV; and August 28, 2008 in Birmingham, AL. The comment
period closed on September 8, 2008.
Like the proposal, the final rule includes new and revised safety
standards for underground coal mines for those Panel recommendations
that required rulemaking. The following five recommendations did not
require rulemaking: Recommendation 2, concerning ``Other Belt Tests,''
recommends that MSHA adopt a drum friction test to be utilized for a
period of two years to evaluate and assess the contribution to conveyor
belt fire safety of such a test. MSHA is continuing to evaluate the
drum friction test to determine if it could complement the Belt
Evaluation Laboratory Test method. This evaluation will occur over a
two-year period, and is consistent with the Panel's recommendation.
Recommendation 4, concerning ``Coordinating belt testing with other
countries,'' recommends that MSHA establish contacts and maintain
dialogue with other key mining countries. MSHA's technical support
program area maintains continuing contact and dialogue with other key
mining countries. Recommendation 11, concerning ``Review of AMS
records,'' recommends that MSHA perform regular, periodic reviews of
atmospheric monitoring system (AMS) records at mines using air from the
belt entry to ventilate working sections. In addition, MSHA already
conducts periodic reviews of AMS records during regular inspections of
the mine. Recommendation 19, concerning ``Inspections of mines
utilizing belt air in the working section,'' recommends that a more
structured procedure be instituted to help mine inspectors complete
their inspection duties with greater ease and efficiency. MSHA will
accomplish this through inspector training. Recommendation 20,
concerning ``Research,'' recommends research utilizing ventilation
modeling, engineering design and risk analysis be performed to
investigate: Improved escapeway design, reduced air leakage, and
booster fans. MSHA will accomplish this through the Agency's technical
support program area, working in collaboration with the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).
This preamble, like that of the proposal, is organized in two
parts. Part III(A) includes requirements for improved flame-resistant
conveyor belts. Part III(B) includes requirements for fire prevention
and detection and approval of the use of air from the belt entry to
ventilate working sections.
III. Section-by-Section Analysis
A. Flame-Resistant Conveyor Belt
1. General
In the 1980s, MSHA and the former Bureau of Mines (Bureau) of the
Department of the Interior developed a flame-resistance test for
conveyor belts that would result in a higher level of flame resistance
than the existing 30 CFR Part 18 test. The Bureau and MSHA constructed
a large-scale test facility at the Lake Lynn Laboratory. The large
scale tests showed the effect of air flow on belt flammability. These
tests were conducted over a wide range of air velocities.
MSHA used the large-scale flammability test data to develop the
Belt Evaluation Laboratory Test (BELT), a laboratory-scale flame
resistance test. In order for a belt to pass the BELT method, it must
have improved fire-resistant capability, which greatly limits flame
propagation. The BELT method is easy to perform, objective, correlates
well with large-scale tests, and is economically and technologically
feasible. MSHA and the Bureau performed extensive testing of the BELT
method. Test results over a 34-month period, based on samples of
conveyor belts, reveal that the BELT method is highly precise and
accurate.
On December 24, 1992, MSHA published a proposal to revise the
existing regulation for testing and acceptance of conveyor belts (53 FR
61524). That proposal would have replaced existing Sec. 18.65
concerning flame-testing of conveyor belts. Under the 1992 proposal,
underground conveyor belts would have been required to meet the more
protective BELT method for MSHA approval under proposed Part 14.
However, the Agency withdrew the proposal (67 FR 46431) on July 15,
2002, due to the decreased frequency of conveyor belt fires. As
mentioned earlier, in accordance with Section 11 of the 2006 MINER Act
and the recommendation of the Panel, MSHA issued a proposal on June 19,
2008 on Safety Standards Regarding the Recommendations of the Technical
Study Panel on the Utilization of Belt Air and the Composition and Fire
Retardant Properties of Belt Materials in Underground Coal Mining.
The final rule addresses Panel Recommendation No. 1--Conveyor Belt
Flammability Testing and Approval, and Recommendation No. 3--Improved
Fire Resistance Standards for All Underground Coal Mines. Consistent
with the Panel's recommendations, this final rule establishes a new
Part 14 that includes the BELT method for the approval of improved
flame-resistant conveyer belts. In addition, the final rule requires
that improved flame-resistant conveyor belts be used in all underground
coal mines. It makes technical and conforming changes to existing Parts
6 and 18.
2. Discussion of the Final Rule
Final Sec. 14.1, changed from the proposal, establishes the
purpose of the final rule and effective date for approval holders.
Final Part 14 establishes the flame resistance requirements for MSHA
approval of conveyor belts for use in underground coal mines.
Applications for approval or extensions of approval submitted after
December 31, 2008 must meet the requirements of final Part 14.
During the rulemaking process and at each of the public hearings,
MSHA solicited comments on the impact of the proposed one-year period
provided manufacturers and operators to transition to the new belt, on
existing inventories, and associated costs to approval holders. A
commenter stated that the transition period was adequate and that they
would not have any difficulty meeting it as long as the approval
process was quick. Another commenter stated that the timetable
established by the Agency may be too aggressive to assure that all the
laboratory testing and approvals are timely completed so that belt
manufacturing and delivery of the new belt products are timely. Based
on Agency experience, MSHA's timely processing of applications will be
dependent upon the completeness of applications submitted to the
Agency. To assure that the new belt will be
[[Page 80582]]
available in a timely manner, the final rule requires that all
applications for approval or extensions of approval submitted after
December 31, 2008 meet the requirements of the final rule. MSHA intends
to process all applications that fully comply with the requirements in
the final rule on a timely basis.
Final Sec. 14.2 establishes the following definitions:
``Applicant'', like the proposal, is derived from existing Sec. Sec.
6.2 and 7.2, and refers to an individual or organization that
manufactures or controls the production of a conveyor belt and who
applies to MSHA for approval. MSHA received no comments on the
proposal.
``Approval'', like the proposal, is derived from existing Sec.
7.2, and replaces the term ``acceptance'' under existing Sec. 18.2. An
approval, issued by MSHA, shows that a conveyor belt has met the
requirements of this Part, and authorizes a marking identifying the
belt as approved. This is consistent with other MSHA approval
regulations which define ``approved'' as the general term which
indicates that a product has met MSHA's technical requirements. MSHA
received no comments on the proposal.
``Extension of approval'', like the proposal, is derived from
existing Sec. 7.2, and is defined as a document issued by MSHA which
states that a change to a conveyor belt previously approved by MSHA
continues to meet the requirements of this Part. An extension of
approval authorizes the continued use of the approval marking after the
appropriate extension number has been added. MSHA received no comments
on the proposal.
``Flame-retardant ingredient'', like the proposal, means material
that inhibits ignition or flame propagation. MSHA received no comments
on the proposal.
``Flammable ingredient'', like the proposal, means material that is
capable of combustion. MSHA received no comments on the proposal.
``Inert ingredient'', like the proposal, means a material that does
not contribute to combustion. MSHA received no comments on the
proposal.
``Post-approval product audit'', like the proposal, is derived from
existing Sec. 7.2, and is defined as an examination, testing, or both,
by MSHA of an approved conveyor belt selected by MSHA to determine if
it meets the technical requirements and has been manufactured as
approved. MSHA received no comments on the proposal.
``Similar conveyor belt'', like the proposal, is defined as a
conveyor belt that shares the same cover compound, general carcass
construction, and fabric type as another approved conveyor belt. MSHA
received no comments on the proposal.
Final Sec. 14.3, derived from existing Sec. 18.9(a), provides
that representatives of the applicant and other persons agreed upon by
MSHA and the applicant may be present during tests and evaluations
conducted under this Part. In response to comments, the final rule is
changed from the proposal to allow the Agency to consider requests
received from others to observe tests.
Commenters requested that miners (or representatives of the miners)
be allowed to observe and evaluate the testing of belts. In response to
this comment, the final rule would allow the Agency to consider
requests received from others to observe tests. It is important to note
that such requests would only apply to tests, not evaluations. MSHA's
evaluations involve a paper review of the application and thus would
not be appropriate for observation. MSHA believes that observation of
tests may be appropriate if it does not involve the release of
proprietary information, so long as it does not interfere with the
approval process, does not delay the approval, and does not create a
conflict of interest. As stated during the rulemaking process, the
Agency must protect any proprietary information submitted.
With this revision, MSHA intends that the approval process for
flame-resistant conveyor belt be as transparent as possible, while
safeguarding the confidentiality of all proprietary information
submitted by applicants. The Agency made a minor non-substantive
change, which clarifies that it is not necessary to state that MSHA be
included in the parties allowed to observe testing and evaluation.
Final Sec. 14.4, like the proposal, is derived from existing
Sec. Sec. 7.3 and 18.6, and provides application procedures and
requirements. The final rule covers two types of approval actions:
Applications for approval and extensions of approval. When requesting
the approval of a flame-resistant conveyor belt, final Sec. 14.4
requires that the applicant submit information necessary to properly
evaluate a conveyor belt. If, after receipt of an approval, the
applicant requests approval of a similar conveyor belt or an extension
of approval for the original conveyor belt, the applicant will not be
required to submit documentation duplicative of previously submitted
information. Only information related to changes in the previously
approved conveyor belt will be required, avoiding unnecessary
paperwork.
Final Sec. 14.4(a), like the proposal, is based on existing
Sec. Sec. 7.3(a) and 18.6(a). It specifies how and where an applicant
files for MSHA approval or extension of approval. Paragraph (a)
requires that applications for approvals or extensions of approval be
sent to: U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health
Administration, Chief, Approval and Certification Center, 765
Technology Drive, Triadelphia, West Virginia 26059. Alternatively,
applications for approval or extensions of approval may be filed online
at http://www.msha.gov or faxed to: Chief, Mine Safety and Health
Administration Approval and Certification Center at 304-547-2044. Since
the proposal, the address of the Center has been changed (73 FR 52210);
the final rule reflects this change. MSHA received no comments on the
proposal.
Final paragraph (b), like the proposal, requires that each
application for approval contain information concerning the
identification and construction of a conveyor belt, except any
information submitted in a prior approval application need not be re-
submitted. An application must address either a single specific
construction, or multiple-ply construction consisting of the same cover
compound and carcass construction varying only by the number of plies
and fabric weight. Under the final rule, if approval of multiple-ply
construction is requested, the minimum and maximum number of plies both
with thinnest-specified cover thickness and heaviest-specified fabric
weight will be tested.
Final Sec. 14.4(b)(1), like the proposal, requires a technical
description of the conveyor belt. This information must include: Trade
name (specification or code numbers) or identification number; cover
compound type and designation number; belt thickness and thickness of
top and bottom covers; presence and type of skim coat; presence and
type of friction coat; carcass construction (number of plies, solid
woven); carcass fabric by textile type and weight (ounces per square
yard); presence and type of breaker or floated ply; and the number,
type, and size of cords and fabric for metal cord belts. MSHA received
no comments on the proposal.
Proposed Sec. 14.4(b)(3) has been renumbered as Sec. 14.4(b)(2).
Like the proposal, it requires the name, address, and telephone number
of the applicant's representative responsible for answering any
questions regarding the application. The applicant may also wish to
include the representative's electronic mail (e-mail) address. MSHA
received no comments on the proposal.
[[Page 80583]]
Proposed Sec. 14.4(b)(2) has been renumbered as final Sec.
14.4(c)(1). The final rule permits an applicant to request an approval
of a similar belt or extension of approval without testing if the
formulation of the belt is provided and MSHA determines testing is not
necessary. The application must include formulation information on the
compounds in the conveyor belt (for example, styrene-butadiene rubber
(SBR), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), chloroprene, composite, or steel
cable) by specifying either: (1) Each ingredient by its chemical name
along with its percentage (weight) and tolerance or percentage range;
or (2) each flame-retardant ingredient by its chemical or generic name
with its percentage and tolerance or percentage range, or its minimum
percent. The applicant must list each flammable and inert ingredient by
chemical, generic or trade name, along with the total percentage of all
flammable and inert ingredients. MSHA will evaluate this information
and determine whether testing using the BELT method should occur or if
the similar belt or extension of approval can be approved without
testing.
A commenter stated that the actual formulation data required to be
submitted to MSHA is more extensive than the existing standard requires
and includes competitively sensitive information. The commenter also
stated that even though MSHA intends to protect the confidentiality of
the information, there can be no guarantees. This commenter stated that
MSHA should be prohibited from requiring compounding or formulation
information to be submitted as part of the application for approval.
Approving belts based upon an evaluation of the formulation and
construction of the belt speeds the approval process and reduces cost
to the applicant by eliminating testing fees. To approve a belt without
testing, detailed formulation information on the composition and
construction of the previously approved belt or belt family is
necessary to assure that the flame-resistant properties would be
maintained. This information may not be necessary if each belt
construction is tested using the BELT method. To address this
commenter's concern, the final rule allows the option of submitting
detailed formulation and construction data for belts, or submitting
samples for testing. Applicants who choose to submit samples for
testing would be responsible for testing fees.
When the formulation and construction information is collected,
MSHA is required to maintain the proprietary nature of this conveyor
belt information submitted under final Sec. 14.4 under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552). MSHA intends to continue its
existing practice of treating information on product specifications and
performance as proprietary information. The Agency will protect
disclosure of this information to the fullest extent, consistent with
the FOIA. Section 14.9 of the final rule provides that MSHA notify the
applicant of requests for product information. MSHA will provide the
manufacturer the opportunity to present its position on disclosure. In
addition, information identified by the manufacturer as proprietary
will not be disclosed.
Proposed Sec. 14.4(b)(4) has been renumbered as final Sec.
14.4(c)(2). It requires the identification of any similar conveyor belt
for which the applicant already holds an approval. The final rule has
been revised to require submission of the formulation specifications
for the approved similar belt if it has not already been submitted to
the Agency. This would be the same information as specified in Sec.
14.4(c)(1).
Final Sec. 14.4(c)(2)(i) requires the applicant to submit, as part
of the application, the MSHA assigned approval number of the belt that
most closely resembles the one being evaluated. Final Sec.
14.4(c)(2)(ii) requires an explanation of any changes from the existing
approval. MSHA's evaluation of whether a belt is similar will determine
if the application has to be processed as an extension of approval or a
new approval.
A commenter stated that this proposal is confusing. This commenter
further stated that MSHA should take the safe approach and test all
belt products, regardless of the number of plies. Under existing Part
18, MSHA's testing program for accepting belts over the last 30 years
includes the evaluation of similar belts. Under the existing program,
each belt that is submitted to MSHA is thoroughly evaluated according
to existing application procedures to determine if additional testing
is necessary or if an extension is justified. The use of the BELT
method will greatly increase safety to miners by the approval of
improved flame-resistant belt. Further, additional information required
under the final rule will allow MSHA to provide a full evaluation of
the belt application.
Final Sec. 14.4(d), renumbered from proposed Sec. 14.4(c),
requires that any change from the documentation on file at MSHA that
affects the technical requirements of Part 14 must be submitted for
approval prior to implementing the change. This requirement avoids
changes being made that could affect the flame resistant properties of
the conveyor belt. MSHA received no comments on the proposal.
Final Sec. 14.4(d)(1), (2), and (3), like the proposal, include
requirements for each application for an extension of approval. Final
paragraph (d)(1) requires the MSHA-assigned approval number of the
conveyor belt for which the extension is sought; final paragraph (d)(2)
requires the description of the proposed change to the conveyor belt;
and final paragraph (d)(3) requires the name, address, and telephone
number of the applicant's representative responsible for answering any
questions regarding the application. The applicant may also include the
representative's e-mail address. MSHA received no comments on the
proposal.
Final Sec. 14.4(e), renumbered from proposed Sec. 14.4(d),
provides that MSHA will determine if testing, additional information,
samples, or material is needed to evaluate an application. Under the
final rule, if an applicant believes that flame testing is not
required, a statement explaining the rationale must be included in the
application. MSHA received no comments on the proposal.
Final Sec. 14.4(f), renumbered from proposed Sec. 14.4(e),
permits an applicant to request an equivalency determination under
existing Sec. 6.20 for a non-MSHA product safety standard. MSHA
received no comments on the proposal.
Final Sec. 14.4(g), renumbered from proposed Sec. 14.4(f),
requires that fees calculated in accordance with Part 5, entitled: Fee
for Testing, Evaluation, and Approval of Mining Products, must be
submitted. MSHA received no comments on the proposal.
Final Sec. 14.5, like the proposal, requires that upon request by
MSHA, each applicant must submit three pre-cut, unrolled, flat samples
of conveyor belt for flame testing. Under the final rule, each sample
must be 60 \1/4\ inches (152.4 0.6 cm) long
by 9 \1/8\ inches (22.9 0.3 cm) wide. The
laboratory-scale test for flame resistance requires testing of three
samples to determine acceptable performance. The final rule requires
pre-cut and unrolled flat samples, which can be mounted for testing.
Uncut and rolled samples require additional time to be cut and
flattened for subsequent mounting in the test chamber. MSHA uses the
word ``pre-cut'' to inform the applicant that the samples would need to
be sent to MSHA already cut to the required sample size. Under existing
Sec. 18.65(a), acceptance applicants are required to submit samples
for testing.
Curling of samples has presented a problem during testing. These
[[Page 80584]]
requirements, along with the required preconditioning of samples, serve
to minimize curling of samples. The requirement to submit samples for
testing is derived from existing Sec. 18.6(i). However, the
requirement for the number and dimension of samples is specific to the
BELT method. MSHA received no comments on the proposal.
Final Sec. 14.6, like the proposal, addresses issuance of
approval. Final Sec. 14.6(a) provides that MSHA will issue an approval
or notice of the reasons for denying approval after completing the
Agency's testing and evaluation. The notice of approval will be
accompanied by relevant documentation and related material, covering
the details of design and construction of the conveyor belt upon which
the approval is based. MSHA received no comments on the proposal.
Final Sec. 14.6(b), like the proposal, requires that an applicant
not advertise or otherwise represent a conveyor belt as approved until
MSHA has issued an approval. MSHA received no comments on the proposal.
Final Sec. 14.7, like the proposal, includes requirements for
approval marking and distribution records. Final Sec. 14.7(a), like
the proposal, requires that an approved conveyor belt must be marketed
only under the name listed in the approval. MSHA received no comments
on the proposal.
Final Sec. 14.7(b), like the proposal, is based on existing Sec.
18.65(f). It requires approved conveyor belts to be legibly and
permanently marked with the assigned MSHA approval number for the
service life of the product. The approval marking must be at least \1/
2\ inch (1.27 cm) high, placed at intervals not to exceed 60 feet (18.3
meters), and repeated at least once every foot (0.3 m or 30.5
centimeters) across the width of the belt. MSHA requires this marking
method since a conveyor belt's edges can wear as it passes along the
conveyor framework, causing fraying. Fraying of conveyor belts, which
may occur during normal use, can cause the approval markings on belts
to become illegible or worn. Relocating the markings from the edge of
the belt to across its width permits identification of the conveyor
belt for a longer time. This method also enables better identification
of conveyor belts cut from larger to smaller widths, or where worn
edges are trimmed. MSHA received no comments on the proposal.
Final Sec. 14.7(c), like the proposal, provides that where the
construction of a conveyor belt does not permit marking as prescribed
under the final rule, other permanent marking may be accepted by MSHA.
This provision allows alternatives for marking conveyor belts. MSHA
received no comments on the proposal.
Final Sec. 14.7(d), like the proposal, requires that the applicant
maintain records of the initial sale of each belt having an approval
marking. Under the final rule, the record must be retained for at least
5 years following the initial sale. Information on initial sales should
include the sale date, the customer name and address, and the belt
identification by slab, batch or lot. A five-year retention period
conforms to MSHA's audit cycle.
During the rulemaking process and at each of the public hearings,
MSHA requested comments on the 5-year retention period for sales
records. Commenters suggested that sales records be kept as long as the
belt is in use, whether it be at the operation it was originally
purchased for or other locations. In addition, a commenter stated that
in order to keep the record straight, MSHA should require that all
sales records follow the belt from the time of purchase to its end-of-
service life. Based on MSHA's experience and data, a five-year
retention period is adequate to discover any potential hazardous
defects, such as through MSHA's post-approval audit process.
Final Sec. 14.8 includes requirements for quality assurance. MSHA
received no comments on the proposal.
Final Sec. 14.8(a), like the proposal, requires approval holders
to flame test a sample of each batch, lot, or slab of conveyor belts;
or flame test or inspect a sample of each batch or lot of the materials
that contribute to the flame-resistance characteristic. This assures
that the finished conveyor belt slab will meet the flame-resistance
test. MSHA received no comments on the proposal.
Final Sec. 14.8(b), like the proposal, requires that the
instruments used for quality assurance under paragraph (a) be
calibrated according to the instrument manufacturer's specifications.
Under this final rule, instruments must be calibrated using standards
set by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S.
Department of Commerce, or other nationally or internationally
recognized standards. The final rule also requires that the instruments
used be accurate to at least one significant figure beyond the desired
accuracy. This calibration sequence is consistent with the procedure
under existing Sec. 7.7. MSHA received no comments on the proposal.
Final Sec. 14.8(c), like the proposal, requires control of
production in accordance with the approval. If a third party is
assembling or manufacturing all or part of the approved belt, the final
rule requires that the approval holder assure that the product is
manufactured as approved. MSHA received no comments on the proposal.
Final Sec. 14.8(d), like the proposal, requires approval holders
to immediately notify the MSHA Approval and Certification Center of any
information that a conveyor belt has been distributed, which does not
meet the specifications of the approval. It also requires that the
notification include a description of the nature and extent of the
problem, the locations where the conveyor belt has been distributed,
and the approval holder's plans for corrective action. Under the final
rule, notification could be by telephone, e-mail, facsimile, or other
similar means. In addition, corrective action may include recalling the
conveyor belt or restricting its use pending resolution of the defect.
MSHA received no comments on the proposal.
Final Sec. 14.9 is derived from existing Sec. 18.9. It addresses
the disclosure of information. Final Sec. 14.9(a), like the proposal,
provides that all proprietary information concerning product
specifications and performance submitted to MSHA by the applicant will
be protected from disclosure. MSHA received no comments on the
proposal.
Final Sec. 14.9(b), like the proposal, provides that MSHA will
notify applicants or approval holders of requests for disclosure of
information concerning their conveyor belts, and provide them an
opportunity to present their position prior to any decision on
disclosure. MSHA received no comments on the proposal.
Under the final rule, MSHA will treat information on product
material, specifications, and processes as protected under exemption 4
of FOIA. Exemption 4 exempts from disclosure ``trade secrets and
commercial or financial information'' obtained from an outside source
and ``privileged or confidential.'' (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)). Under the
Department's regulations at 29 CFR 70.26, Business information, MSHA
will notify the applicant of any FOIA request seeking information
submitted by the applicant under the final rule. The applicant then
will have a reasonable period of time in which to object to disclosure.
An objecting applicant must submit a ``detailed written statement''
showing ``why the information is a trade secret or commercial or
financial information that is privileged or confidential'' [29 CFR
70.26(e)]. MSHA will consider the applicant's objections in deciding
whether to disclose the information. If MSHA determines that the FOIA
[[Page 80585]]
requires disclosure over the applicant's objections, MSHA will notify
the applicant of the documents to be disclosed prior to the disclosure
date (unless MSHA learns that the material already has lawfully been
made public) [29 CFR 70.26(f), (g)]. Under 29 CFR 70.26(b), when
submitting documents, applicants should identify the documents they
wish to protect by marking them (such as stamping each page
``Confidential''). MSHA notes that it has no authority under the FOIA
to withhold applicant documents requested by a Congressional oversight
committee.
Final Sec. 14.10 provides for post-approval product audits. Final
Sec. 14.10(a), like the proposal, provides that approved conveyor
belts are subject to periodic audits by MSHA to determine conformity
with the technical requirements upon which the approval was based.
Under the final rule, MSHA will select representative conveyor belts to
be audited and, upon request, the approval holder may obtain any final
audit report.
One commenter asked if the audit procedures would be applied
equally to domestic and foreign manufacturers who are approval holders.
As MSHA stated during the public hearings, all approval holders will be
held to the same approval and audit procedures, regardless of location.
Other commenters stated that the proposal would only allow the
approval holder to receive the final post-approval product audit report
upon request to MSHA. They stated that the distribution of similar
reports involving respirators are published and distributed by NIOSH to
the mining industry, and believed audit reports should be distributed,
or at least made available, to the entire industry. Commenters added
that they would also like to have these reports provided to the
representative of miners and the operator be required to post a copy on
the mine bulletin board. MSHA conducts post-approval product audits
under other existing regulations, such as Sec. 7.8(a), and consistent
with both the proposal and the final rule, provides copies to the
approval holders upon their request. The Agency has not experienced any
problems or issues with the existing regulations, and the final rule is
the same as the proposal. In the event there is a discrepancy between
the manufactured product and the technical requirements upon which the
approval is based, the approval holder would have to rectify the
discrepancy and meet the requirements in this final rule.
Final Sec. 14.10(b), like the proposal, requires that no more than
once a year, except for cause, the approval holder, at MSHA's request,
make 3 samples of an approved conveyor belt of the size specified in
Sec. 14.5 available to MSHA for an audit at no cost to MSHA. The final
rule also allows representatives of the applicant and other persons
agreed upon by MSHA and the applicant to be present during audit tests
and evaluations; however, if MSHA receives a request from others to
observe tests, the Agency will consider it.
Commenters stated that the representative of miners should be given
an opportunity to be present during any testing or audit conducted by
the Agency. The Agency agrees with the comments that requests to
observe tests should be considered under the same conditions as
explained in final Sec. 14.3, which is designed to protect proprietary
rights of approval holders and not delay the audit process.
Final Sec. 14.10(c), like the proposal, provides that conveyor
belts will be subject to audit for cause at any time MSHA believes the
product is not in compliance with the technical requirements of the
approval. Audits allow MSHA to determine whether products are being
manufactured as approved. MSHA will select the product and may obtain
products from sources other than the manufacturer, such as distributors
or wholesalers.
In determining which products to audit, MSHA will consider a
variety of factors such as whether the manufacturer has previously
produced the product or similar products, whether the product is new or
part of a new product line, or whether the product is intended for a
unique application or limited distribution. MSHA may also consider
product complexity, the manufacturer's previous product audit results,
extent of the product's use in the mining community, and the time
elapsed since the last audit or since the product was first approved.
There are other circumstances or causes when additional audits may
be necessary to verify compliance with this final rule. These include
complaints about the safety or performance of a product, product
changes that have not been approved, audit test results that warrant
further testing to determine compliance, and evaluation of corrective
action taken by an approval holder. Some commenters supported these
audit procedures but insisted that a prompt notice of the findings of
such audits be made available to all interested parties, including the
miners' representatives. In the event that an audit finds a discrepancy
between the manufactured product and the technical requirements upon
which the approval is based, requirements contained in Sec. 14.11 will
be followed.
Final Sec. 14.11, like the proposal, includes requirements for
revocation. Final Sec. 14.11(a)(1) and (2), like the proposal,
provides that MSHA may revoke for cause an approval issued under the
final rule if the conveyor belt (1) fails to meet the technical
requirements of the approval, or (2) creates a danger or hazard when
used in an underground coal mine. MSHA received no comments on the
proposal.
Final Sec. 14.11(b), like the proposal, provides that prior to
revoking an approval, the approval holder will be informed in writing
of MSHA's intention to revoke. Under the final rule, the notice will
(1) explain the reasons for the proposed revocation; and (2) provide
the approval holder an opportunity to demonstrate or achieve compliance
with the product approval requirements.
Commenters suggested that if MSHA issues a revocation notice, other
means besides the internet be used, since not all mine operations and
miners have access to the internet. MSHA's existing practice is to
notify the mining community of equipment and safety alerts by various
means, including the internet, the Agency's district offices and
inspectors, and occasionally, via mail.
Final Sec. 14.11(c), like the proposal, provides that upon
request, the approval holder will be given the opportunity for a
hearing. MSHA's practice is to treat approval holders as ''licensees''
under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. 558). Consistent
with this practice, final Sec. 14.11(b) provides that approval holders
be given due process considerations prior to revocation of an approval.
These considerations include being provided with (1) a written notice
of the Agency's intent to revoke a product approval; (2) an explanation
of the reasons for the proposed revocation; and (3) an opportunity to
demonstrate or achieve compliance with the technical requirements for
approval. Commenters suggested that if a hearing is held, miners and
their representatives should be able to participate. The administrative
procedures for revocation hearings, including participation, will be
determined on a case-by-case basis consistent with requirements
contained in the APA.
Final Sec. 14.11(d), which is changed from the proposal, requires
that if a conveyor belt poses an imminent danger to the safety or
health of miners, an approval may be immediately suspended without
written notice of the Agency's intention to revoke.
[[Page 80586]]
Commenters suggested that MSHA reconsider the proposal since the
immediate suspension of conveyor belt approval necessitating removal of
conveyor belt could pose serious operational difficulty for mine
operators and their employees. They suggested that MSHA develop an
expedited procedure to validate any concerns identified and to
establish a manageable approach to expeditiously remedy such concerns.
The commenters stated that district managers should have the authority
to approve alternative approaches to ``immediate removal.'' Such
approaches could establish agreed upon safety precautions permitting
miners to remain at work during a conveyor belt removal/replacement
cycle.
This final requirement would only be applicable in the event that
MSHA discovers during an audit that a conveyor belt poses an imminent
danger to miners. However, MSHA believes that it is unlikely that an
audit would result in a massive recall of conveyor belt. Under the
final rule, MSHA intends that the severity of the hazard identified in
the audit would dictate the corrective action required. MSHA believes
that, should revocation of an approval become necessary, the Agency
will be able to develop procedures that will allow any identified
defect to be remedied while maintaining safety and health protection
for miners.
Consistent with the Agency's existing practice, revocation of an
approval, as the commenter suggests, is a very serious action, taken
only to correct a condition likely to cause death or serious physical
harm. MSHA's existing regulations in Parts 7 and 15 provide that the
Agency may suspend an approval without written notice, if there is an
imminent danger to miners, pending completion of revocation procedures.
The final rule is changed to provide that in the case of an imminent
danger to miners, the approval may be immediately suspended. This is
consistent with MSHA's other approval regulations.
MSHA believes that removal of belts that pose an imminent danger is
necessary to protect miners from potential injury and life-threatening
hazards. Once an approval is suspended, MSHA will notify the mining
community of this action.
Final Sec. 14.20, like the proposal, requires that conveyor belts
for use in underground coal mines be flame resistant and tested under
final Sec. 14.20 (a) or (b). Under final paragraph (a), testing must
be in accordance with the flame test specified in final Sec. 14.22.
Under final paragraph (b), testing must be in accordance with an
alternate test determined by MSHA to be equivalent under existing Sec.
6.20 and final Sec. 14.4(e). This testing would assure that conveyor
belts meet the specifications in the final rule, are difficult to
ignite, and are highly resistant to flame propagation. MSHA recognizes
that other tests may exist or be developed in the future which could be
appropriate for evaluating flame-resistant qualities of conveyor belt
for use in underground coal mines. Under final paragraph (b), once a
determination of equivalency is made, MSHA will publish a notice in the
Federal Register. MSHA received no comments on the proposal.
Final Sec. 14.21, like the proposal, describes the principal parts
of the BELT apparatus used to test for flame resistance of conveyor
belts. Final Sec. 14.21(a), like the proposal, requires a horizontal
test chamber 66 inches (167.6 cm) long by 18 inches (45.7 cm) square
(inside dimensions). The chamber dimensions were established from the
large-scale belt flammability studies. The test chamber must be
constructed from 1 inch (2.5 cm) thick Marinite I[supreg], or
equivalent insulating material. Should minor cracking occur in the
Marinite I[supreg], it can be repaired using an appropriate sealant.
However, the Marinite I[supreg] or equivalent insulating material must
be replaced and not repaired if the crack or break is across the total
thickness. MSHA received no comments on the proposal.
Final Sec. 14.21(b), like the proposal, requires a 16-gauge (0.16
cm) stainless steel duct section, tapering over at least a 24-inch (61
cm) length from a 20-inch (51 cm) square cross-sectional area at the
test chamber connection to a 12-inch (30.5 cm) diameter exhaust duct,
or equivalent. The interior surface of the tapered duct section must be
lined with \1/2\ inch (1.27 cm) thick ceramic blanket insulation or
equivalent insulating material. The use of stainless steel minimizes
corrosion and the tapered duct section allows a smooth airflow to enter
the exhaust duct. The tapered duct must be lined with ceramic blanket
insulation to minimize high duct temperatures and thermal expansion.
MSHA received no comments on the proposal.
Final Sec. 14.21(c), like the proposal, requires a U-shaped gas-
fueled impinged jet burner igniting source, measuring 12 inches (30.5
cm) long and 4 inches (10.2 cm) wide, with two parallel rows of 6 jets
each. Each jet must be spaced alternately along the U-shaped burner
tube. The 2 rows of burner jets must be slanted so that they point
toward each other and the flame from each jet impinges upon each other
in pairs. The burner fuel must be at least 98 percent methane
(technical grade) or natural gas containing at least 93 percent
methane.
A burner unit available from the Solarflo[supreg] Corporation Model
U-10, using Model Number 640 jets producing 7,500 BTU per hour per jet,
is suitable to comply with these specifications. This burner unit,
which is an impinged jet burner, is the burner type used as the
igniting source in the BELT. Any other burner unit which meets the
specifications would be appropriate. The burner in the final rule was
referenced because it is commercially available and provides a
reliable, reproducible ignition source that can burn methane or natural
gas. The BELT results correlate well with the large-scale belt
flammability test results when using the burner in the final rule and
gaseous fuel in conjunction with the other parameters. MSHA received no
comments on the proposal.
Final Sec. 14.21(d), like the proposal, requires a removable steel
rack, consisting of 2 parallel rails and supports that form a 7 \1/8\ inches (17.8 0.3 cm) wide by 60
\1/8\ inches (152.4 0.3 cm) long assembly to hold a belt
sample. Under final paragraph (d)(1), like the proposal, the 2 parallel
rails, with 5 \1/8\ inches (12.7 0.3 cm)
space between them comprise the top of the rack. The rails and supports
must be constructed of slotted angle iron with holes along the top
surface. Typically, commercially available, 1 inch (2.5 cm) by 1\3/4\
inch (4.4 cm) by \1/8\ inch (0.3 cm) thick angle iron with predrilled
\1/4\ inch (0.6 cm) diameter holes spaced 1 inch (2.5 cm) apart is
used. Under final paragraph (d)(2), the top surface of the rack must be
8 \1/8\ inches (20.3 0.3 cm) from the inside
roof of the test chamber.
The rack materials and dimensions were selected so that the rack
adequately supports the belt sample and withstands repeated tests with
only minor warping due to heat while minimizing the rack's thermal
mass. The distance from the top surface of the rack to the inside roof
of the test chamber was established based on the comparison of the test
results and the development of correlation parameters with the large-
scale belt flammability studies.
The BELT apparatus does not contain any pollution control system
for exhaust fumes created during flame tests. If an applicant chooses
to build a test apparatus and perform the BELT method for research or
quality assurance purposes, some type of effluent control may be
required to meet State and local
[[Page 80587]]
emission standards. MSHA received no comments on the proposal.
Final Sec. 14.22, like the proposal, specifies the test for flame
resistance of conveyor belts. The final rule addresses variables that
have an appreciable effect on the test results in order to maintain
consistency in the testing method. Small changes in barometric
pressure, humidity, and ambient temperature should not have a
significant effect on the test results. Published literature indicates
that small changes in atmospheric pressure have little or no effect on
flame propagation. Variations in ambient temperature did not show a
trend in either decreasing or increasing the burn damage of belts
tested. A small increase or decrease of relative humidity will not have
a significant effect on the flame propagation because conveyor belts
are typically impervious to moisture.
Final Sec. 14.22(a), like the proposal, specifies the test
procedure sequence. Technical dimensions and tolerances that are
critical to the proper conduct of the test and to maintain consistency
in the test method are specified in this final rule, while dimensions
that have no effect on the test results are specified without a
tolerance and are indicated as approximate. MSHA received no comments
on the proposal.
Final Sec. 14.22(a)(1), like the proposal, requires that three
belt samples, 60 \1/4\ inches (152.4 0.6 cm)
long by 9 \1/8\ inches (22.9 0.3 cm) wide, be
laid flat at 70 10 [deg]F (21 5 [deg]C) for
at least 24 hours prior to the test. It assures that the samples are at
laboratory temperatures, facilitates sample mounting, and minimizes
curling during the test. MSHA received no comments on the proposal.
A conveyor belt that has been rolled prior to testing is more
likely to rebound to the rolled position during testing. This action is
considered curling, and may lead to erroneous test results. Samples
which have been rolled prior to testing can develop sufficient curling
forces to overcome the holding capabilities of the cotter pins
installed to retain the sample on the rack. Should curling occur, MSHA
would need to test additional samples in order to assure that reliable
test results have been obtained. The Agency has determined that the use
of flat, unrolled samples greatly reduces the occurrence of curling.
Final Sec. 14.22(a)(2), like the proposal, requires that for each
of three tests, one belt sample be placed on the rails of the rack with
the load carrying surface facing up so that the sample extends 1 \1/8\ inch (2.5 0.3 cm) beyond the front of the
rails and 1 \1/8\ inch (2.5 0.3 cm) from the
outer lengthwise edge of each rail. This centers the longitudinal axis
of the sample along the centerline of the rack with the first inch of
the sample in the ignition area and not in contact with the rack. The 1
\1/8\ inch (2.5 0.3 cm) overlap that extends
beyond the front of the rail facilitates ignition of the belt sample by
minimizing the thermal heat sink created by the sample rack. A greater
overlap can result in the sample curling or pulling back from the
burner during the ignition period. Many PVC belts are constructed with
a solid woven carcass and the top or bottom cover is not designated. If
a belt is constructed without a designated top cover, either side of
the belt could be mounted as the load carrying surface. MSHA received
no comments on the proposal.
Final Sec. 14.22(a)(3), like the proposal, requires the sample to
be fastened to the rails of the rack with steel washers and cotter
pins. The final rule provides the following requirements. The cotter
pin must extend at least \3/4\ inch (1.9 cm) below the rails.
Equivalent fasteners may be used. A series of 5 holes approximately \9/
32\ inch (0.7 cm) in diameter must be made along both edges of the belt
sample, starting at the first rail hole within 2 inches (5.1 cm) from
the front edge of the sample. The next hole must be made 5
\1/4\ inches (12.7 0.6 cm) from the first, the third hole
must be made 5 \1/4\ inches (12.7 0.6 cm)
from the second, the fourth hole must be made approximately midway
along the length of the sample, and the fifth hole must be made near
the end of the sample. A washer must be placed over each sample hole,
and a cotter pin must be inserted through the hole and spread apart to
secure the sample to the rail. MSHA received no comments on the
proposal.
Under the final rule, the locations of the fasteners were chosen so
that the majority (6 of 10) would be in the ignition area to minimize
the belt sample pulling away from the burner, or lifting and curling
during the ignition period. Specific fastener locations with tolerances
for holes 4 and 5 were not identified. It is MSHA's experience that the
exact location of these fasteners is not critical to the retention of
the sample and does not influence the test results. Additional
fasteners can be used in the ignition region for belts that lift
excessively. The fasteners facilitate the secure mounting of the belt
sample and are too small to influence the test results by heat
absorption, even if additional fasteners are used.
Final Sec. 14.22(a)(4), like the proposal, requires centering the
rack and sample in the test chamber with the front end of the sample 6
\1/2\ inches (15.2 1.27 cm) from the
entrance. This location reduces the disturbance of the airflow entering
the test chamber. The location is based on the correlation of the BELT
results to the results of large-scale belt flammability studies. MSHA
received no comments on the proposal.
Final Sec. 14.22(a)(5), like the proposal, requires measuring the
airflow with a 4-inch (10.2 cm) diameter vane anemometer, or equivalent
device, placed on the centerline of the belt sample 12 \1/
2\ inches (30.5 1.27 cm) from the entrance of the chamber.
Airflow passing through the chamber must be adjusted to 200 20 ft/min (61 6 m/min). MSHA received no comments
on the proposal.
The airflow and measuring location are based on comparison of the
test results with the large-scale belt flammability studies. MSHA
identified the variables that affect the conditions of the test, such
as air velocity and the ambient air and tunnel temperatures while
conducting several hundred belt flame tests.
Final Sec. 14.22(a)(6), like the proposal, requires that, before
starting the test on each sample, the inner surface temperature of the
chamber roof be measured at points 6 \1/2\, 30 \1/2\, and 60 \1/2\ inches (15.2 1.27,
76.2 1.27, and 152.4 1.27 cm) from the front
entrance must not exceed 95[deg] Fahrenheit (35[deg] Centigrade) at any
of these points with the specified airflow passing through the chamber.
In addition, the temperature of the air entering the chamber during the
test on each sample must not be less than 50[deg] Fahrenheit (10[deg]
Centigrade).
Under the final rule, the \1/2\ inch (1.27 cm) tolerance is needed
for the temperature measurement points to maintain consistency of the
test conditions. These temperature limits are specified to maintain the
repeatability of the test results and to maintain the comparability
obtained with the large-scale belt flammability studies. An upper limit
on airflow and a lower limit on the temperature of the air entering the
test chamber are included as test control parameters. These test
parameters are designed to assure the test chamber temperature meets
certain restrictions for each of the three tests. MSHA received no
comments on the proposal.
Final Sec. 14.22(a)(7), like the proposal, requires centering the
burner in front of the sample's leading edge with the plane, defined by
the tips of the burner jets, \3/4\ \1/8\ inch (1.9 0.3 cm) from the front edge of the belt. The burner must be
centered in front of the sample's leading edge, so that when ignited
the
[[Page 80588]]
flames from the two rows of jets impinge in front of the belt's edge
and distribute uniformly on the top and bottom surfaces of the sample.
A \1/8\ inch tolerance was added to the location dimension for the
burner jets. This tolerance is important because it maintains the
consistency of the test method. The alignment of the burner provides
for the uniform heating of the sample, which is necessary to maintain
the consistency of the test results.
The exact burner orientation needed to provide uniform distribution
of flame on the top and bottom surfaces of the test sample may vary
depending upon the belt sample's thickness. Based upon comparison tests
and experience gained in developing the BELT method, the burner must be
slanted downward from the vertical, at approximately a 15[deg] angle,
and located \3/4\ \1/8\ inch (1.9 0.3 cm)
from the front edge of the belt. Slanting of the burner compensates for
the buoyancy of the burner flames. The appropriate burner alignment
necessary for uniform distribution of flame may be determined by
adjustments prior to igniting the samples under test. MSHA received no
comments on the proposal.
Final Sec. 14.22(a)(8), like the proposal, requires that, with the
burner lowered away from the sample, the gas flow to the burner must be
set at 1.2 0.1 standard cubic feet per minute (SCFM) (34
2.8 liters per minute) and be maintained throughout the 5
to 5.1 minute ignition period. One standard cubic foot is the amount of
gas which occupies one cubic foot at 72 [deg]F and one atmosphere
pressure (1 cubic liter at 22 [deg]C and 101 kilopascals). The
specified gas flow provides a stable flame and is based on a comparison
of the test results with the large-scale belt flammability studies.
MSHA received no comments on the proposal.
Final Sec. 14.22(a)(9), like the proposal, provides that after
applying the burner flame to the front edge of the sample for a 5 to
5.1 minute ignition period, lower the burner away from the sample and
extinguish the flame. MSHA received no comments on the proposal.
Final Sec. 14.22(a)(10), like the proposal, provides that after
the completion of each test, the undamaged portion across the entire
width of the sample be determined. Determining the undamaged portion
across the entire width of the sample is necessary for specifying
acceptable performance of the conveyor belt. Blistering without
charring does not constitute damage because blistering could result
from heat exposure rather than the presence of flame. MSHA received no
comments on the proposal.
Final Sec. 14.22(b), like the proposal, requires that each tested
sample must exhibit an undamaged portion across its entire width. This
requirement is based on the correlation of the BELT results to the
results of large-scale belt flammability studies. MSHA received no
comments on the proposal.
Final Sec. 14.22(c), like the proposal, provides that MSHA may
modify the procedures of the flammability test for belts constructed of
thicknesses more than 3/4 inch (1.9 cm). No comments were received on
this provision.
Final Sec. 14.23, like the proposal, provides that MSHA may
approve a conveyor belt that incorporates technology for which the
requirements of this final rule are not applicable if the Agency
determines that the conveyor belt is as safe as those which meet the
requirements of the final rule. This final rule is intended to
facilitate the introduction of new technology or new applications of
existing technology with respect to conveyor belts. MSHA received no
comments on the proposal.
Part 75--Mandatory Safety Standards--Underground Coal Mines Subpart L--
Fire Protection
Final Sec. 75.1108 requires the use of improved flame-resistant
conveyor belt, as approved under Part 14, in underground coal mines.
This requirement is consistent with Panel Recommendation 3.
Final Sec. 75.1108(a) is changed from the proposal and allows mine
operators until December 31, 2009 to place in service in underground
coal mines conveyor belts approved under Part 14 or accepted under
existing Part 18.
Final Sec. 75.1108(b) is changed from the proposal and requires
that effective December 31, 2009, conveyor belts placed in service must
be approved under Part 14. In the event that MSHA determines that Part
14 approved belt is not available, the Agency will consider an
extension of the one-year transition period. Notice of an extension
would be published in the Federal Register.
Final Sec. 75.1108(c) is added in the final rule in response to
comments and to clarify the Agency's intent with respect to the use of
existing conveyor belt. It requires that effective December 31, 2018,
all conveyor belts used in underground coal mines must be approved
under Part 14.
Commenters were opposed to permitting the purchase of either Part
18 or Part 14 belt for a period of one year because mine operators
could stockpile Part 18 belt, and use that belt underground for an
extended period of time. They stated that Part 14 belt should be
required to be purchased and installed in the mine upon the effective
date of the final rule. These commenters stated that mine operators
should only be permitted to use Part 18 belts already in service or in
their inventory.
In response to comments, MSHA included a new paragraph in the final
rule that clarifies the Agency's intent with respect to the use of
existing belt. Under the final rule, operators will have up to ten
years to use existing belt, which has been placed into service by
December 31, 2009. This assures that all belt used in underground coal
mines will meet the requirements of Part 14 within ten years.
The final rule language also has been changed from the proposal to
include the phrase, ``placed in service'' instead of ``purchased for
use.'' The Agency intends that ``placed in service'' clarifies that all
new conveyor belts installed one year after the publication date of
this final rule will comply with Part 14 requirements.
A commenter stated that mine operators should be permitted to
continue to remove belts, trim them down, and re-install the belt in
their underground mines. Under the final rule, mine operators may
continue these practices if the belts have been placed in service in
their mines prior to or during the one-year transition period, that is,
the one-year period when either Part 18 or Part 14 belt may be
purchased. Belts that have been placed in service prior to or during
the one-year transition period can be used until December 31, 2018.
This belt may not be marketed for use in other underground coal mining
operations after December 31, 2009, but may be used by the same mine
operator.
Existing Sec. 75.1108-1 is removed because it is no longer needed.
3. Conforming Amendments
This final rule requires conforming amendments to existing approval
regulations in Parts 6 and 18.
Part 6--Testing and Evaluation by Independent Laboratories and Non-MSHA
Product Safety Standards
Section 6.2 concerning the definition of ``Equivalent non-MSHA
product safety standards,'' and Sec. 6.20(a)(1) concerning
applications for equivalency, are both amended by adding Part 14
(Conveyor Belts in Underground Coal Mines). These are administrative
and conforming provisions.
Part 18--Electric Motor-Driven Mine Equipment and Accessories
Part 18 is amended by removing the term ``conveyor belt'' from
existing
[[Page 80589]]
Sec. Sec. 18.1, 18.2, 18.6(a), 18.6(i), 18.9(a) and 18.65. The revised
sections of Part 18 would only relate to acceptance of hoses, and
existing Sec. 18.6(c) would be removed and reserved. MSHA is making
these conforming amendments to Part 18 because applications for
approval of conveyor belts will be considered only under Part 14.
B. Fire Prevention and Detection and Approval of the Use of Air From
the Belt Entry To Ventilate Working Sections
1. General
This final rule enhances miner safety and health by including
improved requirements for the use of air from the belt entry, belt
entry and conveyor maintenance, and fire prevention and detection. This
final rule includes requirements on: Approval of using air from the
belt entry to ventilate working sections; replacement of point-type
heat sensors with carbon monoxide sensors in all coal mines; training
of AMS operators; requirements for escapeways; limits on respirable
dust in the belt entry; maximum and minimum air velocities in the belt
entry; standardized tactile signals for lifelines; use of smoke sensors
in mines using air from the belt entry; and improved belt entry
maintenance.
Consistent with the Panel's recommendations this final rule, like
the proposal, includes requirements applicable to mines that use air
from the belt entry to ventilate a working section, and requirements
applicable to all underground coal mines. The requirements applicable
to all underground coal mines include: Airlocks along escapeways;
minimum belt entry air velocity; standardized tactile signals for
lifelines; maintaining higher ventilating pressures in the primary
escapeway; replacing point-type heat sensors with carbon monoxide
sensors for fire detection in belt entries; and belt entry maintenance.
In addition, this final rule, like the proposal, revises existing
requirements related to the use of carbon monoxide sensors for fire
detection along belt lines in all mines. These include sensor spacing,
establishing a warning level, responses to warning and malfunction
signals, testing and calibration requirements, and minimum air velocity
to incorporate the use of carbon monoxide sensors.
This section of the final rule addresses the following Panel
recommendations:
Recommendation 5--Belt entry and conveyor belt
maintenance;
Recommendation 6--Special requirements for the use of belt
air;
Recommendation 7--Belt air approval recommendation;
Recommendation 8--Discontinuing point-type heat sensors;
Recommendation 9--Smoke sensors;
Recommendation 10--Use of diesel-discriminating sensors;
Recommendation 12--AMS operator training certification;
Recommendation 13--Minimum and maximum air velocities;
Recommendation 14--Escapeways and leakage;
Recommendation 15--Lifelines;
Recommendation 16--Point-feeding; and
Recommendation 17--Respirable dust.
2. Discussion of the Final Rule
Part 48--Training and Retraining of Miners Subpart B--Training and
Retraining of Miners Working at Surface Mines and Surface Areas of
Underground Mines
Final Sec. 48.27(a), like the proposal, revises the existing rule
to require that miners assigned to new work tasks as AMS operators be
trained before they perform these duties. This requirement is
consistent with Panel recommendation 12, that MSHA require the
qualification and certification of AMS operators. This requirement
applies to AMS operators that are monitoring methane or carbon monoxide
sensors used to meet the requirements of: Sec. Sec. 75.323(d)(1)(ii)--
Actions for excessive methane; 75.340(a)(1)(ii) and 75.340(a)(2)(ii)--
Electrical installations; 75.350(b) and 75.350(d)--Use of air from a
belt entry to ventilate working sections; or 75.362--On-shift
examinations. MSHA believes that AMS operators must have the
background, experience, and training to assure that proper actions are
taken in response to AMS signals, including alerts, alarms, and
malfunctions, to provide the highest degree of safety to all affected
miners.
Existing Sec. 48.23 requires that a training plan be approved by
MSHA for specific tasks, and that the training be provided prior to the
miner performing those tasks. The Agency has added AMS operators to the
list of tasks covered by this provision.
A commenter stated that AMS operators should participate in a
simulated mine emergency as part of the initial training. While mine
operators may elect to include a simulated mine emergency in the
initial task training for AMS operators, the final rule does not
require simulated mine emergency training. The responsible person
designated under existing Sec. 75.1501 is required to take charge
during a mine emergency. That person must be trained annually in a
course of instruction in mine emergency response.
Another commenter stated that this task training duplicates the
annual training already required for AMS operators and qualified
persons. Under the final rule, the initial task training and annual
retraining are separate requirements. The initial task training is
designed to assure that the AMS operator has the necessary skills to
operate the AMS prior to assuming responsibility for that task. The
annual retraining in Sec. 75.351(q) is designed to reinforce existing
skills and to assure that the AMS operator remains capable of doing the
task, with an understanding of current mining operations.
Part 75--Mandatory Safety Standards--Underground Coal Mines
Subpart B--Qualified and Certified Persons
Section 75.156--AMS Operator, Qualifications
Final Sec. 75.156(a), like the proposal, is new and requires that
to be qualified as an AMS operator, a person shall be provided with
task training on duties and responsibilities at each mine where an AMS
operator is employed in accordance with the mine operator's approved
Part 48 training plan. This requirement is consistent with Panel
recommendation 12, that MSHA require the qualification and
certification of AMS operators.
MSHA recognizes that a significant portion of the knowledge
necessary for an AMS operator is mine-specific and must be tailored to
conditions at each mine. This task training must be provided at each
mine where the AMS operator performs these duties due to different AMS
designs, variations in ventilation plans and systems, complexities of
evacuation plan requirements, and uniqueness of the mine
configurations. MSHA has developed a training guide to assist mine
operators in identifying essential elements to be included in the
training plan.
A commenter stated that this training should not be included with
the Part 48 annual retraining. This commenter was concerned about
diluting the Part 48 training and wanted the AMS operator training to
be separate.
A commenter asked if MSHA would develop an initial training program
for AMS operators. A commenter also stated that a copy of the initial
training plan should be furnished to miners or a representative of
miners two weeks
[[Page 80590]]
before its submission to the district manager.
The new initial task training for AMS operators does not impact
other existing training requirements in Part 48. MSHA has developed a
model training program that mine operators can tailor to fit specific
mining conditions and equipment at their mines. Consistent with
existing Sec. 48.23(d), mine operators must furnish a copy of the
training plan to a miner's representative two weeks prior to its
submission to the district manager.
Final Sec. 75.156(b), like the proposal, requires that an AMS
operator must be able to demonstrate to an authorized representative of
the Secretary that he/she is qualified to perform the assigned tasks.
The inspector will make a determination about the AMS operator's
qualifications during regular inspections. In making this
determination, the inspector will ask the AMS operator questions
regarding: The responses to AMS signals; notification requirements;
approved mine plans; recordkeeping requirements; and AMS operating
requirements. This assures that the AMS operator fully understands how
to operate and respond to the AMS.
Subpart D--Ventilation
Actions for Excessive Methane
During the rulemaking process and at each of the public hearings,
MSHA solicited comments on whether the Agency should establish a new
provision to require that changes or adjustments be made to reduce the
concentration of methane when a range between 0.5 and 1.0 percent
methane is present in the belt entry as measured 200 feet outby the
section loading point. In addition, MSHA specifically requested
comments on the level at which changes or adjustments should be made.
MSHA received no comments regarding a specific level at which changes
or adjustments should be made.
The Agency's request for comments was based on Panel Recommendation
18, which stated that the district manager should regularly evaluate
any working section that has methane readings at or above 0.5% methane,
measured 200 feet outby the tailpiece of the belt. This recommendation
applied only to mines that use air from the belt entry to ventilate
working sections.
A commenter agreed with the Panel's recommendation and supported a
new standard to require that corrective actions be made when methane
levels range between 0.5 and 1.0 percent, measured 200 feet outby the
section loading point. This commenter did not recommend a specific
level, but did state that methane levels should be reduced to the
lowest possible level.
Several commenters were opposed to a new standard stating that
existing standards, combined with methane limits and tests already in
place for the working section, provide adequate protection. Commenters
also stated that any attempt to reduce methane concentrations in the
belt entry below 1.0 percent could create undesired pressure
differentials from the belt entry to the intake air course. MSHA agrees
that this may be true for blowing ventilation systems, but not for
exhausting ventilation systems.
Further, according to commenters, adjustments to reduce the methane
concentration in the belt entry to a range below 0.5 to 1.0 percent may
not be possible because intake methane levels up to 1.0 percent are
permitted. MSHA notes that existing standards require that when 1.0
percent or more methane is present in the belt entry, changes or
adjustments must be made to reduce the concentration to less than 1.0
percent.
Consistent with the Panel's recommendation, MSHA is not including a
new standard in the final rule, but intends to change the Agency's
inspection procedures to require that inspectors measure methane in the
belt entry at a point 200 feet outby the section tail piece. This will
allow the Agency to determine the effect of the use of air from the
belt entry on methane levels in the working section.
The Agency recognizes that moving air from the intake to the belt
may reduce the methane concentration 200 feet outby the section loading
point, but may not result in reduced methane concentrations on the
working section because the total air quantity delivered to the section
will not be increased.
Section 75.333(c)(4)--Ventilation Controls
Final Sec. 75.333(c)(4), like the proposal, is a new provision
requiring that an airlock be established where the air pressure
differential between air courses creates a static force exceeding 125
pounds on closed personnel doors along escapeways.
The final rule is responsive to Panel Recommendation 14 that
personnel doors along escapeways should be installed to establish an
airlock when the static force created by the pressure differential
exceeds 125 pounds. High pressure differentials on doors can lead to
serious injuries to miners opening and closing these doors. Providing
an airlock between entries provides a safe means for miners to travel
between two air courses. An airlock consists of a pair of doors
installed in ventilation controls between two air courses, which form a
pressure equalizing chamber. A miner would open the first door, enter
the airlock, and close the door. After equalizing the pressure, the
miner can then open the second door and move into the adjacent entry.
The need for safe access is critical during a mine emergency evacuation
when miners must move between adjacent air courses.
The Panel recommended a standard based upon the force on the
personnel door of 125 pounds. This force on any specific door is
dependent upon the pressure differential across the ventilation
control, and the surface area of the personnel door. For the same
pressure differential, the force required to open a personnel door
increases proportionately with surface area.
In order to calculate the force exerted by a pressure differential,
the pressure differential and door dimensions must first be determined.
As reflected in the Panel's example, a 125-pound force limitation on a
3-foot by 4-foot door would be created by a pressure differential of
2.0 inches of water. A 3-foot by 4-foot personnel door has an area of
1,728 square inches (3' x 4' = 12 square feet x 144 in\2\ /ft\2\ =
1,728 square inches). For a force of 125 pounds, the distribution is
0.0725 pounds per square inch (125 lb / 1,728 in\2\ = 0.0725 psi).
Using the conversion factor, 1 psi = 27.68 inches of water, the
equivalent pressure differential can be calculated to be 2.0 inches of
water (0.0725 psi x 27.68 in. H2O/psi = 2.0 inches of
water).
A commenter supported the proposal to require airlocks, but
suggested spacing the airlocks at intervals not to exceed 1,000 feet
for the entire length of the escapeway from the section to the surface.
Consistent with the Panel recommendation, MSHA believes that airlocks
should only be required when the force on a personnel door between air
courses along escapeways could result in injury to miners when opening
or closing the door. If the force is less than 125 pounds, miners
should not experience difficulty opening or closing the door. Requiring
airlocks on doors with lower pressures would unnecessarily delay miners
in moving between escapeways.
Some commenters suggested the proposal be modified to allow the use
of alternative measures such as flaps and sliders to comply with the
proposed requirement for airlocks. Another suggested that airlocks only
be required when alternatives such as hinged or sliding doors or flaps
do not reduce the force on the door to less than 125 pounds. In the
preamble to the proposal, MSHA stated mine operators may have
[[Page 80591]]
alternatives to establishing airlocks, including reducing the size of a
personnel door, providing a flap, or sliding door, which may reduce the
static pressure to below 125 pounds. Under the final rule, the Agency
will allow alternatives to reduce the force on a door. Airlocks are
only required when the force exceeds 125 pounds. Mine operators have
the option to use alternatives to reduce the force on a door.
A commenter suggested that the final rule should state that
airlocks only be required between adjacent escapeways when the force on
the door exceeds 125 pounds. However, such a change would not be
consistent with the Panel's recommendation. In the final rule, MSHA
intends that airlocks be established where the air pressure
differential between air courses along escapeways creates a static
force exceeding 125 pounds on closed personnel doors.
During the rulemaking process and at the public hearings, the
Agency solicited comments on other suitable pressures. No comments were
provided. MSHA also solicited comments on the number of airlocks that
would be required under the proposal and the associated cost. One
commenter provided data from 14 mines, which identify the number of
airlocks required in each mine based upon the proposed rule. MSHA has
considered this comment in the regulatory economic analysis.
Section 75.350--Belt Air Course Ventilation
Final Sec. 75.350(a)(2), like the proposal, revises the existing
standard. It requires that one year after the publication of the final
rule, the air velocity in the belt entry must be at least 50 feet per
minute. It also requires that air velocities be compatible with all
fire detection systems and fire suppression systems used in the belt
entry.
MSHA has revised the existing standard because of changes to final
Sec. 75.1103-4 (fire detection systems), which replaces point-type
heat sensors for early-warning and detection of conveyor belt fires
with carbon monoxide fire sensor systems in all belt entries. When
point-type heat sensor systems are used for fire detection, no minimum
velocity in the belt entry is needed because the sensors are heat-
activated. When carbon monoxide sensors are used, a minimum air
velocity of 50 feet per minute is necessary to assure that carbon
monoxide gas produced by a fire will be carried by the air current to
the downwind sensors in a timely manner. This minimum velocity has been
required for over two decades in mines using carbon monoxide sensors
for fire detection, and has been shown to provide effective early
warning.
The final rule, like the proposal, allows mine operators to request
lower velocities in the ventilation plan in areas where the minimum
velocity cannot be maintained. Where the district manager approves such
a plan, carbon monoxide sensor spacing would have to be reduced to no
greater than 350 feet. NIOSH research and Agency experience show that
the reduced spacing is necessary to assure carbon monoxide resulting
from a fire more quickly reaches downwind sensors.
Commenters questioned where and how MSHA would make air velocity
measurements under the proposal. Consistent with existing inspection
procedures, MSHA uses representative cross-sectional areas when
determining air velocities. Large areas (such as belt channels, boom
holes, and fall areas) and restricted areas (such as overcasts) are not
representative and would not be used to determine air velocities.
Another commenter supported the proposal but stated that the
district manager should conduct an investigation, including a
ventilation survey, prior to approving a lower velocity in the
ventilation plan. Prior to approving changes in the ventilation plan,
the district manager receives recommendations from inspectors,
supervisors and specialists who are familiar with specific conditions
in the mine. The district manager can also direct that further
investigation or review be made at the mine which could include an
underground ventilation survey. However, the Agency does not believe it
is necessary to conduct an underground investigation in all cases and
has not included such a requirement in the final rule.
Final Sec. 75.350(b), like the proposal, revises the existing
standard. It provides that the use of air from a belt air course to
ventilate a working section be permitted only when evaluated and
approved by the district manager in the ventilation plan. It requires
the mine operator to provide justification in the plan that the use of
air from the belt entry affords at least the same measure of protection
as where belt haulage entries are not used to ventilate working places.
This final rule addresses Panel Recommendation 7, which states that
MSHA should evaluate, as part of the approval of the mine ventilation
plan, the safety of the use of air from the belt entry to ventilate
working sections. The Panel further stated that the district manager
must take special care to evaluate whether the air from the belt entry
can be routed to the working face in a manner that is safe for all
miners involved.
The final rule has been changed from the proposal to reduce to two
months the time allowed for mine operators currently using air from the
belt entry to submit a revised ventilation plan to the district
manager. This change was made in response to commenters and to clarify
MSHA's intent that mine operators submit their revised ventilation
plans as soon as feasible after the final rule becomes effective. MSHA
believes that the two-month period allows adequate time.
The Agency will approve ventilation plans and revisions that assure
that the use of air from the belt entry to ventilate working sections
affords at least the same measure of protection as where belt haulage
entries are not used to ventilate working places. The district manager
will notify the operator in writing of the approval or denial of
approval of a proposed ventilation plan or proposed revision. The
district manager will send a copy of this notification to the miners'
representative. If the district manager denies approval of a proposed
plan or revision, the district manager will notify the operator, in
writing, of the deficiencies and the deadline for submitting the
required information.
If the operator does not respond by the deadline, or if issues can
not be resolved, the district manager will send a second letter
notifying the operator: (1) That the plan has not been approved; (2) of
the deadline for submitting any required information; and (3) that
after that deadline, if the operator does not submit the required
information, the plan will be revoked. If the operator does not submit
the required information in response to the second letter, the district
manager will send a letter notifying the operator that the plan is
revoked.
Operating after the revocation date is a violation of the existing
standard requiring an approved ventilation plan. A citation would be
issued for failure to have an approved plan, as required by the
existing ventilation standard.
During the rulemaking process and at the public hearings, MSHA
solicited comments on this proposal. The Agency was particularly
interested in comments related to circumstances in which the district
manager does not approve the continued use of air from the belt entry
to ventilate working sections.
A commenter stated that the use of air from the belt entry should
not be
[[Page 80592]]
allowed. However, the commenter suggested that for consistency, the
Assistant Secretary should review all plan revisions proposing the use
of air from the belt entry. If the district manager makes the decision,
the commenter recommended that MSHA develop criteria for plan approval
that would hold mine operators to a higher standard. The commenter
further stated that when the use of air from the belt entry is
disapproved, its use should be discontinued immediately.
Other commenters supported the use of air from the belt entry to
reduce methane levels, and stated that mines currently using that air
to ventilate working sections should be allowed to continue. Some of
these commenters also indicated that if the district manager decides to
disapprove the use of air from the belt entry, a reasonable transition
period should be allowed for the mine operator to make the necessary
ventilation changes.
Mine ventilation plans are designed to reflect the specific
conditions at each operation. The MSHA personnel most familiar with
those mines--local mine inspectors, specialists and supervisors--
possess the technical expertise and are in the best position to make
recommendations concerning plan approvals. Consistent with the Panel's
recommendation, MSHA believes that the district manager is the
appropriate senior official to make plan approval determinations
including whether air from the belt entry should be used to ventilate
working sections. To facilitate consistency with respect to Agency
policy, MSHA will develop criteria for district managers to use when
granting approval for the use of belt air.
There are potential sources of fire in belt conveyor entries, and
the use of air from the belt entry to ventilate working sections can
result in contaminants from a fire being carried to the working
section. However, the Agency recognizes that there may be compelling
reasons to use air from the belt entry as an intake air source for the
section. These reasons may include the need for additional ventilation
to dilute methane, or the need for fewer entries to reduce ground
control hazards.
The district manager may approve the use of air from the belt entry
to ventilate the working section only in sections developed with three
or more entries. Under existing standards, a petition for modification
will be required for two-entry mine development to use air from the
belt entry to ventilate the working section, and to operate the belt in
the return air course. The final rule does not affect existing granted
petitions for modification at two entry mines.
In the preamble to the proposal, the Agency indicated that when the
district manager makes a determination that the use of air from the
belt entry would no longer be permitted in the mine ventilation plan,
continued use of that air would be permitted until completion of
current mining. MSHA recognizes that a transition period may be
necessary, and that some mines can implement the change more readily
than others. In response to commenters, the district manager, as part
of the plan approval process, will make a determination on the duration
of this transition period based on the specific conditions at each
mine.
Commenters also stated that the Agency should not allow the use of
air from the belt entry to ventilate working sections until MSHA
establishes standards, as part of the conveyor belt approval process,
for smoke density and toxicity. The Agency recognizes that smoke
density and toxicity can impact escape during a mine fire. To address
these areas, MSHA issued a Request for Information to solicit input
from the mining community and other interested parties (73 FR 35057).
MSHA believes that the use of air from the belt entry to ventilate
working sections can be made as safe as not using such air. As noted by
the Panel, conditions such as high methane levels and deep ground cover
can present serious safety concerns to miners. The use of air from the
belt entry in these circumstances may result in a safer mine
environment.
In 2006, a fatal fire occurred at the Aracoma Alma Mine No. 1 in
West Virginia. Public comments made during this rulemaking implied that
deficiencies in the ventilation methods and safety measures in place at
Aracoma at the time of the fire were approved by MSHA in the
ventilation plan.
However, the accident investigation revealed that the Aracoma mine
was not ventilated as specified and required in the approved
ventilation plan. In the accident report, MSHA identified 25 violations
of safety standards as contributing to the accident. The Agency
concluded that the two fatalities would have been prevented had the
mine operator fully complied with MSHA standards.
Final Sec. 75.350(b)(3), revises the existing standard. Paragraph
(b)(3)(i), like the proposal, requires that the average concentration
of respirable dust in the belt air course, when used as a section
intake air course, must be maintained at or below 1.0 mg/m\3\.
Paragraph (b)(3)(ii), like the proposal, requires that where miners on
the working section are on a reduced respirable coal mine dust standard
that is below 1.0 mg/m\3\, the average concentration of respirable dust
in the belt entry must be at or below the lowest applicable respirable
dust standard on that section. Paragraph (b)(3)(iii), like the
proposal, requires that a permanent designated area (DA) for dust
measurements must be established at a point no greater than 50 feet
upwind from the section loading point in the belt entry when the belt
air flows over the loading point or no greater than 50 feet upwind from
the point where belt air is mixed with air from another intake air
course near the loading point. The DA must be specified and approved in
the ventilation plan.
Final Sec. 75.350(b)(3) is consistent with Panel Recommendation
17. The Panel stated that respirable coal mine dust concentrations in
the air coursed through a belt conveyor entry, and used to ventilate
working sections, should be as low as feasible and must not exceed the
existing standard of 1.0 mg/m\3\. The Panel also stated that district
managers should have the authority to require improvements in dust
control in the belt entry if the dust concentration exceeds an 8-hour
time-weighted average of 1.0 mg/m\3\ or raises the concentration in
that section above the exposure limit.
Reduced standards are frequently established on working sections
due to presence of respirable quartz. The existing exposure limit for
respirable coal mine dust is 2.0 mg/m\3\ when quartz levels are five
percent or less. This standard is reduced when respirable dust in the
mine atmosphere contains more than five percent quartz. Reduced
standards are computed by dividing the percent of quartz measured in
the mine atmosphere into the number ten. For example, if the mine
atmosphere contains 20 percent quartz, the reduced standard would be
0.5 mg/m\3\ (10/20 = 0.5 mg/m\3\). The purpose of a reduced standard is
to limit miner exposure to respirable quartz.
The final rule, like the proposal, assures that the respirable coal
mine dust exposure of miners on the working section would not be
increased by the use of air from the belt entry. For example, if the
standard for the continuous miner operator (the designated occupation)
is 2.0 mg/m\3\ and the reduced standard for the roof bolter on the same
working section (a designated area) is 0.8 mg/m\3\, the average
concentration of respirable dust in the belt entry used to ventilate
that working section must not exceed 0.8 mg/m\3\. This is because 0.8
mg/m\3\ is the lowest applicable respirable dust standard on the
section.
If a mine operator is unable to effectively reduce the respirable
dust
[[Page 80593]]
levels in the belt entry to meet this requirement, the district manager
will have the authority to revoke the ventilation plan which allowed
the use of air from the belt entry to ventilate the working section.
MSHA believes that technology is available to effectively lower
respirable dust levels in the belt entry. Because a principal source of
respirable dust is at belt transfer points, technologies such as
improved water sprays may reduce dust concentrations. If a mine
operator reduces the air velocity in the belt entry, this could result
in less scouring and lower respirable dust concentrations. As the Panel
indicated, the operator should implement improved engineering controls
whenever possible, or use air from another intake air course.
During the rulemaking process and at each of the public hearings,
the Agency solicited comments on the proposal. A commenter supported
the proposal. Another commenter agreed with reducing dust
concentrations, and stated that the dust concentration should be as low
as feasible.
Another commenter requested that MSHA not include this proposal in
the final rule because there is no scientific justification for
reducing the intake content of air that does not contain quartz in
excess of five percent. The commenter stated that there is no
connection between the designated area in the belt area and areas on
the working section where there would be a reduced standard.
Another commenter stated that the proposal was unnecessary because
respirable dust samples must still be collected at the affected
designated areas or designated occupations. This commenter stated that
additional reduction of dust concentrations to less than 1.0 mg/m\3\
should not be required unless sample results from the designated area
or occupations indicate non-compliance with the existing standard.
The mine ventilation system must provide the necessary air quantity
and velocity to dilute and disperse the airborne dust generated in the
working section. This requires the intake air ventilating working
sections to be sufficiently uncontaminated to maintain compliance with
applicable dust standards. MSHA recognizes that permitting air from the
belt entry to ventilate working sections increases the quantity of air
at the working place. The Agency also recognizes that conveyor belt
entries represent a constant and potentially significant dust
generating source that can contribute to the respirable dust exposure
of all miners on the working section. Consistent with the Panel's
recommendation, the final rule is necessary to assure that air from the
belt entry does not increase miners' exposure to respirable coal mine
dust.
Final Sec. Sec. 75.350(b)(7) and (b)(8), like the proposal, are
new provisions. Final Sec. 75.350(b)(7) requires that the air velocity
in the belt entry must be at least 100 feet per minute where this air
is used to ventilate working sections. It provides that when requested
by the mine operator, the district manager may approve lower velocities
in the ventilation plan based on specific mine conditions. Final Sec.
75.350(b)(8) requires that the air velocity in the belt entry must not
exceed 1,000 feet per minute. It provides that when requested by the
mine operator, the district manager may approve higher velocities in
the ventilation plan based on specific mine conditions.
These requirements address Panel Recommendation 13. The Panel
recommended minimum and maximum air velocities in belt entries for
mines using air from belt entries to ventilate working sections. The
Panel recommended a minimum velocity of 100 feet per minute, and a
maximum of 1,000 feet per minute in the belt entry, but acknowledged
that there are situations where these velocities may be difficult to
maintain. For this reason, the Panel recommended allowing the district
manager to approve exceptions to the minimum and maximum velocities.
The Panel provided three reasons for requiring a minimum velocity
of 100 feet per minute: Improve the response time for fire detection;
reduce the possibility of methane layering; and mitigate underground
fog formation. The Panel recommended limiting the maximum velocity to
1,000 feet per minute to address physical discomfort to workers when
air from the belt entry is used to ventilate working sections. Also,
according to the Panel, when air from the belt entry is used to
ventilate working sections, increased velocity will result in a greater
entrainment of dust particles, resulting in a need to limit the
velocity.
The Panel noted that it may be difficult to achieve minimum air
velocities in locations outby point-feed regulators, and where the air
meets a partial obstruction like an airway constriction at an overcast
or undercast. MSHA believes that additional areas where minimum air
velocities may be hard to achieve include those areas where entry
height is exceptionally high.
Consistent with the Panel's recommendation, the final rule provides
that the district manager may approve exceptions to the minimum and
maximum velocities in the mine ventilation plan based on specific mine
conditions. These exceptions can be approved where reductions to sensor
spacing or alert and alarm levels are made to assure the fire detection
capabilities of the AMS are maintained. In developing their ventilation
plans, mine operators should use the criteria in NIOSH research (RI
9380, 1991) to determine appropriate alert and alarm levels.
A commenter supported the proposal but suggested that exceptions to
the minimum and maximum velocities be approved at MSHA headquarters.
For the reasons outlined above, MSHA believes that the district manager
is in the most appropriate position to make a judgment on this issue.
Another commenter objected to any limits on the velocity of air in
the belt entry. That commenter stated that velocities greater than
1,000 feet per minute may be necessary in gassy mines. However, the
commenter did recognize that the proposal allowed the district manager
to approve higher velocities in specific situations.
Consistent with the Panel recommendation, MSHA believes
establishing limits on velocity in the final rule, with the district
manager being able to approve exceptions to the limits, is justified
for mines using air from the belt entry to ventilate working sections.
Final Sec. 75.350(d)(1), like the proposal, revises the existing
standard. It requires that the air current that will pass through the
point-feed regulator must be monitored for carbon monoxide or smoke at
a point within 50 feet upwind of the point-feed regulator. It also
requires that a second point must be monitored 1,000 feet upwind of the
point-feed regulator, unless the mine operator requests a lesser
distance to be approved by the district manager in the mine ventilation
plan based on mine-specific conditions.
The final rule addresses Panel Recommendation 16. The Panel
recommended that mines using air from the belt entry to ventilate
working sections install, where possible, a second carbon monoxide
sensor in the primary escapeway 1,000 feet upwind of the sensor
required by the existing standard. MSHA believes that this final rule
will expedite escape in the case of a fire or other emergency, since a
fire in the primary escapeway may be detected before contaminants
inundate the alternate escapeway. This early-warning will provide the
AMS operator and responsible person with additional time
[[Page 80594]]
to assess potential hazards and determine necessary corrective actions.
MSHA is aware that point-feeding air from the primary escapeway to
the belt entry designated as the alternate escapeway can present
significant problems for miners who must evacuate the mine due to a
fire in the primary escapeway. The second sensor would monitor the
primary escapeway for fire. Agency experience suggests this is possible
in most cases since point-feed regulators are typically near the mouth
of development panels or deep into the mains of the mine. However, the
final rule allows operators to request that a lesser distance be
approved by the district manager in the mine ventilation plan based on
mine-specific conditions, for example, near intake shafts where the
distance from the point-feed regulator to the bottom of the shaft may
be less than 1,000 feet.
A commenter suggested that similar protection should be required
for locations where air is introduced from a shaft or slope into the
belt air course (injection point). MSHA does not consider these
locations to be point-feed regulators. This commenter's suggestion is
beyond the scope of the Panel's recommendation and this rulemaking.
Other commenters stated a sensor installed 1,000 feet out by a
point-feed regulator did not provide additional protection and was not
necessary. In its report, the Panel recommended installation of this
sensor to provide earlier warning of a fire in the intake, and to
eliminate possible false alarms. MSHA agrees that these sensors can
provide early detection of a fire in the intake, and enhance miner
safety.
Proposed Sec. 75.350(d)(7) is not included in the final rule. The
proposal would have required that where point-feeding air from a
primary escapeway to a belt entry designated as an alternate escapeway,
point-feed regulators be equipped with a means to remotely close the
regulator. It would have also required that the AMS operator, after
consultation with the responsible person and section foreman, be
capable of performing this function from the designated surface
location. The final rule does not include a requirement for providing a
means for closing or re-opening the regulator from the designated
surface location.
The proposed rule addressed Panel Recommendation 16. The Panel
recommended that, when carbon monoxide sensors detect alert or alarm
levels of carbon monoxide and the mine has designated the belt entry as
the alternate escapeway, the AMS operator should have the ability and
authority to remotely close or open the point-feed regulator after
consulting with the responsible person designated by the mine operator
to take charge during mine emergencies.
Several commenters indicated that closure of a point-feed regulator
would be a major ventilation change. The commenters noted that the
change can reduce the intake air quantity on a working section and
create hazardous conditions. These commenters were opposed to requiring
a means to remotely close or re-open point-feed regulators due to the
possibility of inadvertent closure, which could create explosive
atmospheres in working places. A commenter stated that these types of
air changes should be performed only by trained mine rescue personnel
with MSHA approval, and only after the mine was evacuated.
MSHA agrees that closure of a regulator can reduce the intake air
quantity on a working section, and may cause sudden and rapid increases
in methane concentrations on the working sections. Closing regulators
without properly notifying sections may lead to an ignition in the face
area, fires and explosions.
After a review of the comments, the Agency has determined, based on
its experience with making ventilation changes during emergencies that
the existing requirement that point-feed regulators be provided with a
means to close the regulator from the intake and belt air courses
within the mine is the most appropriate method for making this
ventilation change during a mine emergency. This allows an on-site
evaluation of the circumstances surrounding the emergency, and prevents
an inadvertent or unauthorized closure from the surface.
Section 75.351(b)--Designated Surface Location and AMS Operator
Final Sec. 75.351(b)(2), like the proposal, revises the existing
standard. It requires that the AMS operator must have as a primary duty
the responsibility to monitor the malfunction, alert and alarm signals
of the AMS, and to notify appropriate personnel of these signals. In
response to comments and to clarify the Agency's intent, the final rule
is changed from the proposal to include a requirement that, in the
event of an emergency, the sole responsibility of the AMS operator
shall be to respond to the emergency.
The final rule addresses Panel Recommendation 12. The Panel
indicated that the highest priority of the AMS operator should be
monitoring and responding to system signals. Under the final rule, the
AMS operator is not prohibited from performing additional duties as
long as the alert, alarm and malfunction signals can be seen or heard,
and a timely response can be initiated. The final rule will assure that
the AMS operator's other duties do not adversely affect the primary
responsibility of responding to AMS signals.
Commenters supported this provision, but were concerned that AMS
operators may have other duties not directly related to safety and
health. These commenters also stated that AMS operators should not have
other responsibilities during an emergency.
In response to these comments, the final rule adds a requirement
clarifying that, in the event of an emergency, the sole responsibility
of the AMS operator shall be to respond to the emergency. This will
assure that an AMS operator is performing those duties essential to the
safety and health of miners during an emergency.
Section 75.351(e)--Location of Sensors--Belt Air Course
Final Sec. 75.351(e)(1), like the proposal, revises and renumbers
existing Sec. 75.351(e). Under final Sec. 75.351(e)(1), the term
``approved'' has been added to clarify that all sensors used for fire
detection must be approved under existing Sec. 75.1103-2. In addition,
the term ``smoke sensors'' has been deleted. The requirements for smoke
sensors are addressed in final Sec. 75.351(e)(2).
Final Sec. Sec. 75.351(e)(1)(i) and (ii), like the proposal,
renumber existing Sec. Sec. 75.351(e)(1) and (2). Final Sec.
75.351(e)(ii) makes nonsubstantive changes for clarity and ease of
reading. No other changes have been made to these provisions.
Final Sec. 75.351(e)(1)(iii), like the proposal, renumbers and
revises existing Sec. 75.351(e)(3). It requires approved sensors at
intervals not to exceed 1,000-feet along each belt entry; however, in
areas along each belt entry where air velocities are between 50 and 100
feet per minute, spacing of sensors must not exceed 500 feet. It also
retains the existing requirement that in areas along each belt entry
where air velocities are less than 50 feet per minute, the sensor
spacing must not exceed 350 feet.
The requirement for a minimum velocity in the belt entry is based
on the time it would take for carbon monoxide or smoke to travel from a
fire to the sensors. When the air velocity is reduced, the time
required to carry carbon monoxide gas or smoke to a sensor is
increased. Therefore, the distance between sensors needs to be reduced
to maintain the same level of early-warning fire detection.
[[Page 80595]]
The 500-foot spacing interval for velocities between 50 and 100
fpm, like the proposal, is a new requirement. MSHA calculated the
spacing requirement, which provides a 10-minute maximum travel time for
gases between sensors. The 500-foot spacing requirement with a velocity
between 50 and 100 fpm is equivalent to the 1,000-foot sensor spacing
with 100 fpm air velocity. The time for carbon monoxide gas or smoke to
travel from a fire to a downwind sensor is no greater than 10 minutes.
A commenter supported the provision, but stated that the
effectiveness of the reduced sensor spacing should be demonstrated in
the mine. The Agency has extensive experience and data on the air flow
characteristics in belt conveyor entries, including tracer gas tests
and ventilation surveys. That experience and data show that reduced
sensor spacing requirements are effective for detecting carbon monoxide
produced by a fire. MSHA believes further testing at each mine site is
not necessary.
Final Sec. 75.351(e)(1)(iv), like the proposal, renumbers and
revises existing Sec. 75.351(e)(4). It requires approved sensors not
to be more than 100 feet downwind of each belt drive unit, each
tailpiece transfer point, and each belt take-up. In addition, if the
belt drive, tailpiece, and/or take-up for a single transfer point are
installed together in the same air course, and the distance between the
units is less than 100 feet, they may be monitored with one sensor
downwind of the last component. Also, if the distance between the units
exceeds 100 feet, additional sensors are required downwind of each belt
drive unit, each tailpiece transfer point, and each belt take-up.
A commenter supported the proposal, and added that the sensors
should also be visually examined during the preshift examination.
Existing standards require these sensors to be visually examined at
least once each shift because they are installed to comply with Sec.
75.350(b). The examination can be made during either the preshift or
on-shift examination.
Another commenter suggested the provision should apply only to
mines using air from the belt entry to ventilate the working section.
While the final rule applies only to mines using air from the belt
entry, the same requirement is included in final Sec. 75.1103-
4(a)(1)(i) and applies to all mines using belt haulage. Belt drives,
tail pieces, transfer points and take-up units are potential fire
sources. The additional sensors will assure earlier detection of a
fire.
Final Sec. 75.351(e)(1)(v), like the proposal, renumbers existing
Sec. 75.351(e)(5). No other changes have been made.
Final Sec. 75.351(e)(2), like the proposal, is a new provision. It
requires smoke sensors to be installed to monitor the belt entry under
final Sec. 75.350(b). The final rule addresses Panel Recommendation 9
that MSHA require the use of smoke sensors in addition to carbon
monoxide sensors in mines using air from a belt entry to ventilate
working sections at three specific locations.
When smoke sensors become available, mine operators must comply
with the requirements for installing both smoke and carbon monoxide
sensors in those mines that use air from the belt entry to ventilate
the working section.
Final Sec. 75.351(e)(2)(i), like the proposal, requires a smoke
sensor to be installed at or near the working section belt tailpiece in
the air stream ventilating the belt entry. In addition, in longwall
mining systems, the sensor must be located upwind in the belt entry at
a distance no greater than 150 feet from the mixing point where intake
air is mixed with the belt air at or near the tailpiece.
A smoke sensor at or near the section tailpiece will warn miners of
smoke prior to it contaminating the working section. This allows more
time for miners to evacuate the section with less exposure to
potentially toxic fumes.
Final Sec. 75.351(e)(2)(ii), like the proposal, requires a smoke
sensor to be installed not more than 100 feet downwind of each belt
drive unit, each tailpiece, transfer point, and each belt take-up. In
addition, if the belt drive, tailpiece, and take-up for a single
transfer point are installed together in the same air course, and the
distance between the units is less than 100 feet, they may be monitored
with one sensor located downwind of the last component. Also, if the
distance between the units exceeds 100 feet, additional sensors are
required downwind of each belt drive unit, each tailpiece, transfer
point, and each belt take-up. These components are potential fire
sources. The additional sensors will assure earlier detection of a
fire.
Based upon the Panel's report and Agency experience and data, MSHA
believes that smoke sensors provide additional protection at the belt
drive, which can be a major source of frictional heating from belt
slippage. This can often produce significant smoke with little carbon
monoxide, and can result in a belt fire.
Final Sec. 75.351(e)(2)(iii), like the proposal, requires smoke
sensors to be installed at intervals not to exceed 3,000 feet along
each belt entry. The Agency is not requiring a smoke sensor to be
installed near the midpoint of the belt line as recommended by the
Panel. The midpoint of the belt line will change as the section
advances or retreats, which would require splicing of the data line
when relocating the smoke sensor. The frequent splicing of the data
lines could allow moisture and dust to enter the line and may result in
communication failures. Miners have indicated that frequent splicing of
the cable containing the AMS data line can adversely affect the
reliability of a system.
MSHA believes the requirement for smoke sensors along the belt
entry is responsive to the Panel's goal for more effective and reliable
early detection of conveyor belt fires. The final rule would avoid
problems associated with frequent relocation of the smoke sensor. The
3,000-foot spacing requirement provides longer belts to be monitored at
additional locations.
Final Sec. 75.351(e)(2)(iv), like the proposal, provides that the
smoke sensor requirements of this final rule are effective one year
after the Secretary has determined that a smoke sensor is available to
reliably detect fire in underground coal mines. This final rule is
consistent with the Panel's suggested delayed effective date for the
smoke sensor requirement, to permit in-mine evaluation of the sensors.
The Panel noted reliability and maintenance issues with the use of
smoke sensors in underground coal mines, especially along conveyor belt
entries.
NIOSH is currently testing smoke sensors used in other harsh
industrial environments for their potential use in underground mines.
NIOSH is evaluating these sensors to assess reliability and service
life.
To allow for further in-mine evaluation and approval of smoke
sensors, the Secretary's determination will be made after a nationally
recognized testing laboratory formally lists a smoke sensor
specifically tested for use in underground coal mines. In making the
determination regarding the availability of smoke sensors, the
Secretary will also consider whether additional rulemaking is
appropriate. MSHA will notify mine operators of the availability of
smoke sensors by publishing a notice in the Federal Register.
The final rule is based on the Secretary's authority under existing
Sec. 75.1103-2 to approve nationally recognized testing laboratories.
The Secretary has approved two such laboratories for listing or
approving components of automatic fire sensors.
[[Page 80596]]
They are Underwriters Laboratories (UL) and Factory Mutual (FM). These
laboratories establish standards for manufacturers of components of
automatic fire sensors used in underground coal mines.
MSHA has recommended a change to a commercial standard for smoke
detectors to be applied to address sensor reliability in underground
coal mines. In December 2002, the Agency asked UL to add a category for
smoke sensors for underground coal mines to their commercial
performance standard for smoke sensors (UL268). In MSHA's request to
UL, the Agency asked that the performance standard for smoke sensors
include tests for sensitivity to smoldering and flaming coal. UL has
formed a new working group, which includes an MSHA representative, to
study false alarms caused by coal mine dust and other airborne
particulates.
MSHA's Program Policy Manual (Manual) provides additional guidance
on the requirements of Sec. 75.1103-2. The Manual states that fire
sensors used in belt entries must be listed or approved by UL or FM.
New or unique devices to be used as fire sensors that are not yet
listed by UL or FM and which may meet the requirements of these
standards can be submitted to MSHA's Office of Technical Support for a
determination of whether they are acceptable to use.
Once a laboratory has formally listed a smoke sensor for use in
underground coal mines, the Secretary will evaluate the sensor to
determine if it will reliably detect a fire in the underground
environment. MSHA believes that, once the smoke sensors for underground
coal mines are available, one year will allow mine operators using air
from the belt entry to ventilate working sections sufficient time to
purchase and install the sensors. The Agency intends to keep the mining
community informed of ongoing activities with respect to the
development of smoke sensors for underground coal mines.
Some commenters supported the proposal, but stated that smoke
sensors are currently available. They added that upon approval,
installation should be immediate and not be delayed by allowing one
year for compliance. Other commenters stated that smoke detectors
should not be required until they are reliable and commercially
available.
NIOSH has not found smoke sensors to be reliable for fire detection
in the mine environment. Research continues to identify technology that
can be adapted to the mine environment, and MSHA intends to require
smoke sensors when available. The Agency believes that one year is an
appropriate time period for manufacturers to produce the sensors, and
for mine operators to purchase and install them.
A commenter supported the locations of smoke sensors but wanted
sensors to be placed at intervals not to exceed 1,500 feet and to have
smoke sensors placed at every transfer point along each belt line.
Consistent with the Panel recommendation, the Agency believes a 3,000-
foot interval achieves the objective for placing a sensor near the
midpoint of each belt flight. MSHA recognizes that once a smoke sensor
has been approved for use in underground coal mines, adjustments to
spacing requirements may be necessary based on in-mine testing.
Section 75.351(q)--Training
Final Sec. 75.351(q)(1), like the proposal, revises existing Sec.
75.351(q). It requires that all AMS operators must be trained annually
in the proper operation of the AMS. It requires that training include
the following subjects under final paragraphs (q)(1)(i) through (vii):
Familiarity with underground mining systems; basic AMS requirements;
the mine emergency evacuation and firefighting program of instruction;
the mine ventilation system including planned air directions;
appropriate responses to alert, alarm and malfunction signals; use of
mine communication systems including emergency notification procedures;
and AMS recordkeeping requirements.
The final rule is consistent with Panel Recommendation 12 which
specifies the content of required annual training for AMS operators.
Under the final rule, training should address the specific
conditions and practices at the mine where the AMS operator is
employed. Based on Agency experience, MSHA believes an understanding of
these subjects is essential to properly perform the duties of an AMS
operator.
A commenter supported the specified content of the proposed
training but stated that the training under the proposal should not be
part of the annual Part 48 training. This commenter also stated that
AMS operators should receive training on system maintenance and
calibration in order to better judge when the system may need
maintenance.
The training required in the final rule is separate from annual
refresher training in Part 48. AMS operators will receive training on
those aspects of maintenance and calibration that are directly related
to alert, alarm, and malfunction signals.
Final Sec. 75.351(q)(2), like the proposal, is new and requires
that, at least once every six months, all AMS operators must travel to
all working sections. The Panel stated that some AMS operators do not
travel underground, and recommended that they be required to spend at
least a day underground on a semi-annual basis.
Several commenters objected to the proposal, stating that some AMS
operators are disabled and may not be able to travel underground
safely. In support of their objection, they stated that some of these
AMS operators are miners with substantial underground experience and,
under the proposal, would be precluded from operating the AMS. Another
commenter stated that accommodations can be made for disabled AMS
operators to travel underground.
Other commenters supported the proposal because they recognize the
value of the AMS operator being familiar with underground workings. In
their view, this familiarity gives AMS operators a greater sense of
what needs to be done during an emergency. These commenters also stated
that a greater frequency than every six months may be needed.
Consistent with the Panel recommendation, MSHA believes it is
important for AMS operators to travel underground to retain familiarity
with underground mining systems including haulage, ventilation,
communication, and escapeways. MSHA appreciates commenters' concerns
for disabled miners, but the Agency believes that accommodations can be
made to allow disabled AMS operators to meet this requirement. MSHA
also believes that the six-month frequency recommended by the Panel is
appropriate to provide AMS operators with current information on the
underground operation.
Final Sec. 75.351(q)(3) is changed from the proposal to be
consistent with the existing requirement to keep training records for
one year. It requires a record of the content training, the person
conducting the training, and the date the training was conducted to be
maintained at the mine for at least one year by the mine operator. The
final rule allows MSHA to verify the training in the previous year has
been conducted.
Several commenters objected to the proposed requirement to maintain
the training records for two years, stating that it was inconsistent
with other existing record retention requirements. One commenter
supported the proposal. For consistency, the final rule includes a one
year record retention period.
[[Page 80597]]
Section 75.352--Actions in Response to AMS Malfunction, Alert, or Alarm
Signals
Final Sec. 75.352(f), like the proposal, makes a conforming
reference and organizational changes to the existing standard. It
deletes the term ``50-foot per minute'' and replaces the reference to
Sec. 75.351(e)(3) with Sec. 75.350(b)(7).
Final Sec. 75.352(g), like the proposal, is new. It requires that
the AMS automatically provide both a visual and audible signal in the
belt entry at the point-feed regulator location, at affected sections,
and at the designated surface location when carbon monoxide
concentrations reach (1) the alert level at both point-feed intake
monitoring sensors, or (2) the alarm level at either point-feed intake
monitoring sensor.
The final rule addresses Panel Recommendation 16 that when both of
the sensors installed in the primary escapeway monitoring the point
feed reach the carbon monoxide alert level, or if one sensor reaches
the alarm level, a warning signal be given at the regulator location.
The Panel's recommendation addresses point-feed regulators where air is
introduced to a belt entry and used to ventilate the working section.
The Panel specifically limited this recommendation to point-feed
regulators feeding the belt entries designated as alternate escapeways.
The final rule provides that visual and audible signals be
automatically activated at all three locations when concentrations of
carbon monoxide at both of the sensors in the intake escapeway reach
the alert level or when one sensor reaches the alarm level.
The signal at the regulator would provide notice to miners nearby
that a fire may have occurred in the primary escapeway. This
information will assist miners in evacuating the mine.
The Panel did not specify in which escapeway the signal is to be
located. The final rule specifies that the signal be located in the
belt entry (alternate escapeway). Since the purpose of the signal is to
warn of a potential fire in the primary escapeway, MSHA believes that
it is more appropriate to locate the signal on the belt side of the
regulator.
A commenter stated that since the signal is in an area that is
normally unmanned, it would not be useful. That commenter further
stated that if a signal is required, it should only alarm when the
point feed regulator has been closed, and the signal should only be
required if the belt entry is designated as the alternate escapeway.
Consistent with the Panel recommendation, the signal is required
only where the belt entry is designated as the alternate escapeway.
This would include any entries designated as the escapeway common with
the belt. This signal must be given when sensors monitoring the primary
escapeway indicate a potential fire. The signal, which is in addition
to the signals provided to affected sections, will provide miners in
the area with early notification that there is a potential fire in the
primary intake, and that the alternate escapeway could become
contaminated. The signal would allow those miners to take early and
appropriate action.
Section 75.371--Mine Ventilation Plan; Contents
Final Sec. 75.371(jj), like the proposal, revises the existing
standard. It requires that the mine ventilation plan contain the
locations and approved velocities at those locations where air
velocities in the belt entry are above or below the limits set forth in
final Sec. 75.350(a)(2) or final Sec. Sec. 75.350(b)(7) and
75.350(b)(8).
The final rule addresses Panel Recommendation 13 regarding the
approval of air velocities in the belt entry. Although the Panel
recommended minimum and maximum velocities in the belt entry, they
recognized that in certain areas of underground coal mines it may be
difficult to achieve these velocities. The Panel specifically noted
that this may occur in the outby air split near a point-feed regulator,
or where the air meets a partial obstruction like an airway
constriction at an overcast or undercast. Where the recommended
velocities cannot be achieved, the Panel recommended that the district
manager may approve exceptions in the mine ventilation plan, dependent
upon specific mine conditions.
MSHA believes that requiring approval in the mine ventilation plan
will allow the district manager to fully evaluate the conditions in the
mine including all aspects of the mine ventilation system. In making a
determination on whether to approve requested velocities, the district
manager would evaluate the need for increasing fire detection
sensitivity by adjusting alert and alarm levels for high velocities or
reducing sensor spacing for low velocities.
Final Sec. 75.371(mm), like the proposal, revises the existing
standard. It requires that the mine ventilation plan contain the
location of any diesel-discriminating sensor, and additional carbon
monoxide or smoke sensors installed in the belt air course.
The final rule addresses Recommendation 10 that MSHA perform
regular, periodic reviews of the AMS records at mines using air from a
belt entry to ventilate working sections to evaluate the number of
occurrences of false alarms due to diesel exhaust. In those instances
where such false alarms are excessive, the Panel recommended MSHA
should require the use of diesel-discriminating sensors.
Based on Agency experience and data, diesel exhaust contains carbon
monoxide, and can activate alerts and alarms. Under these
circumstances, these signals may not be the result of a fire, but the
result of diesel equipment operating in the area. An excessive number
of these alert and alarm signals can cause miners to become complacent
and routinely ignore them as false alarms. The benefit of diesel-
discriminating sensors is that the frequency of signals caused by
diesel engines is reduced.
The final rule provides that the district manager may require the
use of diesel-discriminating sensors in the approved mine ventilation
plan. It requires that the operator include in the ventilation plan the
locations of any diesel-discriminating sensors. The district manager
decision to require the use of these sensors will be based on mine
conditions where diesel-powered equipment is used and excessive alert
and alarm signals are caused by diesel exhaust. Since the final rule is
applicable to all mines using belt haulage, the reference to existing
Sec. 75.351(e)(5), that relates to mines using air from the belt entry
to ventilate the working section, is deleted.
MSHA conducts periodic reviews of AMS records during regular
inspections of the mine. MSHA re-emphasized procedures for inspecting
an AMS in a recently revised Agency handbook, which specifically
provides inspectors with guidance on evaluating the frequency of
diesel-related alert and alarm signals (Carbon Monoxide and Atmospheric
Monitoring Systems Inspection Procedures MSHA Handbook PH-08-V-2,
February, 2008).
Final Sec. 75.371(nn), like the proposal, revises the existing
standard. It requires that the mine ventilation plan contain the length
of the time delay or any other method used to reduce the number of non-
fire related alert and alarm signals from carbon monoxide sensors.
This final rule addresses Panel Recommendation 8 on discontinuing
the use of point-type heat sensors, and replacing them with carbon
monoxide sensors for early fire detection in all mines using belt
haulage. Existing Sec. 75.351(m) requires that the use and length of
any time delays be approved by the district manager in the mine
ventilation plan for mines using air from the belt entry to ventilate
the working
[[Page 80598]]
section. Time delays may also be necessary in some mines that do not
use air from the belt entry to ventilate working sections to aid in the
reduction of false alarms. Like the proposal, final Sec. 75.1103-4
requires the use of carbon monoxide sensors. Therefore, time delays for
these mines must also be approved in the mine ventilation plan.
Accordingly, the final rule deletes the reference to existing Sec.
75.351(m) because this final rule applies to all mines using belt
haulage.
Proposed Sec. 75.371(yy) would have required that the mine
ventilation plan contain the locations where airlock doors are
installed between air courses. Several commenters suggested that
including the locations in the ventilation plan is unnecessary since
those locations are already required on the mine ventilation map.
Commenters also stated that no approval to install an airlock should be
required in the ventilation plan. MSHA concurs that the mine
ventilation map is the appropriate place to identify airlock locations.
Therefore, proposed Sec. 75.371(yy) is not included in the final rule.
Proposed Sec. 75.371(zz) is renumbered to Sec. 75.371(yy). It
requires that the mine ventilation plan contain the locations where the
pressure differential cannot be maintained from the primary escapeway
to the belt entry.
The final rule addresses Panel Recommendation 14 that primary
escapeways be ventilated with intake air preferably, and to the extent
possible, the primary escapeway should have a higher pressure than the
belt entry. The final rule allows the district manager to evaluate
specific mine conditions and require additional actions or precautions
to be taken to protect the integrity of the primary escapeway, as
appropriate.
A commenter suggested that requiring approval in the ventilation
plan of locations where pressure differentials cannot be maintained
would require frequent and unnecessary changes. MSHA believes these
areas must be identified in the plan to allow an evaluation of the
methods used to limit air leakage into the primary escapeway. The
Agency expects that in areas where the pressure differentials cannot be
maintained from the primary escapeway to the belt, mine operators will
provide additional protection to maintain the integrity of the primary
escapeway. These protections would include enhanced stopping
construction and design, or changes to the ventilation system.
Sections 75.380--Escapeways; Bituminous and Lignite Mines, and 75.381--
Escapeways; Anthracite Mines
Final Sec. Sec. 75.380(d)(7)(v) and 75.381(c)(5)(v), like the
proposal, revise the existing standards. They require that each
lifeline be equipped with one directional indicator cone securely
attached to the lifeline, signifying the route of escape, placed at
intervals not exceeding 100 feet. In addition, cones must be installed
so that the tapered section points inby. The final rule adds the phrase
``securely attached to the lifeline'' to clarify the Agency's intent
under the proposal.
Final Sec. Sec. 75.380(d)(7)(vi) and 75.381(c)(5)(vi), are
renumbered and changed from proposed Sec. Sec. 75.380(d)(7)(vii) and
75.381(c)(5)(vii). They require each lifeline to be equipped with one
sphere (such as a tennis ball) securely attached to the lifeline at
each intersection where personnel doors are installed in adjacent
crosscuts.
Final Sec. Sec. 75.380(d)(7)(vii) and 75.381(c)(5)(vii), are new.
The final rule responds to comments by simplifying the proposal. The
final rule requires that each lifeline be equipped with two securely
attached cones, installed in succession with the tapered section
pointing inby, to signify an attached branch line is immediately ahead.
Final Sec. Sec. 75.380(d)(7)(vii)(A) and 75.381(c)(5)(vii)(A) are
renumbered and changed from proposed Sec. Sec. 75.380(d)(7)(vi) and
75.381(c)(5)(vi). They require a branch line leading from the lifeline
to an SCSR cache to be marked with four cones with the base sections in
contact to form two diamond shapes. The cones must be placed within
reach of the lifeline.
Final Sec. Sec. 75.380(d)(7)(vii)(B) and 75.381(c)(5)(vii)(B) are
renumbered and changed from proposed Sec. Sec. 75.380(d)(7)(ix) and
75.381(c)(5)(ix). They require a branch line leading from the lifeline
to a refuge alternative to be marked with a rigid spiraled coil at
least eight inches in length. The spiraled coil must be placed within
reach of the lifeline.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 75.380(d)(7)(viii) and 75.381(c)(5)(viii),
which required each lifeline be marked to provide tactile feedback
distinguishable from other markings to indicate the location of
physical impediments in the escapeways, are not included in the final
rule.
The final rules address Panel Recommendation 15. The Panel made
recommendations on tactile signals attached to lifelines and signal
standardization.
Several commenters supported the proposed standardization of
tactile signals, but believed the proposed rule created a system of
cones that was too complicated. These commenters wanted a simpler
system that would be easier to remember during a mine emergency.
Several of these commenters also stressed the need for adequate
training for miners.
Another commenter believed standardization was not necessary, and
that mines should be permitted to continue to use signals they have
developed, which have been used for an extended period of time. This
commenter believed changing the tactile signals may create confusion.
This commenter also stated the proposal would require replacing miles
of lifeline in their mine and retraining hundreds of miners for little
benefit.
During the rulemaking process and at the beginning of each public
hearing, the Agency specifically solicited comments on alternate
tactile signal markings. The Agency received no specific comments
suggesting alternatives to its proposal.
In response to comments, the final rule requires a simpler system
of tactile signals. The Agency continues to believe that a standardized
system will reduce the possibility of confusion in an emergency, and
will provide an additional safety benefit to miners who transfer to
different mines, because they would not have to become familiar with
new signal systems.
The final rule requires only three signals to be attached to the
lifeline. These are for direction of travel, location of personnel
doors, and to alert miners that a branch line is ahead that would lead
to either an SCSR storage cache or a refuge alternative. Additional
signals are required on the branch lines to identify whether it leads
to an SCSR storage cache or a refuge alternative. Illustration 1 shows
how these signals should be installed.
[[Page 80599]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31DE08.000
The final rule does not include a tactile signal to indicate the
location of physical impediments in the escapeway. By not including
this signal, the Agency has simplified the signals on the lifeline. The
Agency believes that the locations of physical impediments can be
addressed during evacuation training.
In another rulemaking, MSHA is establishing new requirements for
refuge alternatives in underground coal mines. Because tactile signals
on lifelines are addressed in this final rule, to provide a
comprehensive and integrated approach for these requirements, the
Agency is including the requirement for tactile signals leading to
refuge alternatives in this rulemaking. In the proposal, the Agency
would have required a two-foot rigid coil as a tactile signal for
refuge alternatives. The proposed requirement has been changed to a
rigid spiraled coil at least eight inches in length.
These signals, when integrated with the comprehensive escape and
evacuation plan, including escapeway drills and expectation training,
will help miners understand the differences in, and significance of,
tactile signals and aid in evacuating the mine.
Existing Sec. Sec. 75.380(d)(7) and 75.381(c)(5) require
escapeways to be provided with lifelines or an equivalent device. The
new requirements for tactile signals are applicable to any device used
to comply with these sections.
Final Sec. Sec. 75.380(f) and 75.381(e), like the proposal, revise
the existing standards on the primary escapeway. They provide that one
escapeway, ventilated with intake air, shall be designated as the
primary escapeway. The final rules require that the primary escapeway
shall have a higher ventilation pressure than the belt entry unless the
mine operator submits an alternative in the mine ventilation plan to
protect the integrity of the primary escapeway, based on mine specific
conditions, which must be approved by the district manager.
The final rules address Panel Recommendation 14. The Panel
recommended that primary escapeways should be designed, constructed,
and maintained in accordance with the provisions of existing Sec. Sec.
75.333(b) through (d) to minimize the air leakage. The Panel also
recommended that primary escapeways be ventilated with intake air and,
to the extent possible, the primary escapeway should have a higher
pressure than the belt entry. Based on Agency experience, MSHA
recognizes the need to maintain the pressure differential from the
primary escapeway to the belt air course. A higher pressure in the
primary escapeway would assure that air leakage would move from the
escapeway to the belt entry. In case of a fire in the belt entry, the
primary escapeway would not become contaminated. Under the final rule,
an operator may submit an alternative in the mine ventilation plan,
based on mine specific conditions, to protect the integrity of the
primary escapeway. The alternative must be approved by the district
manager.
There are two components to air leakage. First, the flow from one
entry to the other is caused by the pressure differential. Air will
tend to flow from high to low pressure. The other component is the
resistance to flow. A high resistance will not allow high air flow
rates even when the pressure differentials are considerable. A key to
limiting air leakage through a ventilation control is to increase the
resistance by sealing the control and its perimeter. Historically, MSHA
has identified damaged and improperly installed doors as sources of
high air leakage. Openings in stoppings to provide routing of air and
water lines, electrical conductors and other conduits must also be
sealed to minimize air leakage. When these conduits are
[[Page 80600]]
removed, ventilation controls must be properly repaired.
The Agency does not support the use of check curtains or other
temporary ventilation controls such as parachute stoppings to increase
the resistance in the primary escapeway in order to pressurize the air
course during normal mining. The use of such controls on a regular
basis diminishes the efficiency of the ventilation system.
Commenters stated that mine operators should be required to
maintain the pressure differential from the primary escapeway to the
belt entry at all times, and that alternatives should not be approved
in the mine ventilation plan, but only in petitions for modification. A
commenter also stated the pressure in the primary escapeway should at
all times be at least 50 percent higher than that in the belt entry.
Other commenters indicated that maintaining the pressure
differential as proposed may not be feasible in all areas of the mine.
Consistent with the Panel recommendation, MSHA believes that to the
extent possible, the primary escapeway should have a higher pressure
than the belt entry. The Agency's action in the final rule reflects the
Agency's opinion that it is not possible to maintain the primary
escapeway at a pressure 50 percent higher than the belt entry in all
areas of the mine, as suggested by commenters. This is especially so on
development sections where pressures equalize near the section loading
point. Due to unique conditions in mines, the district manager is the
appropriate official to make determinations regarding alternatives to
maintaining the pressure differential based upon a review of the mine
operator's proposed revision to the mine ventilation plan.
Subpart L--Fire Protection
Section 75.1103-4--Automatic Fire Sensor and Warning Device Systems;
Installation; Minimum Requirements
Final Sec. 75.1103-4, like the proposal, requires the use of
carbon monoxide sensors for fire detection along belt conveyors in all
underground coal mines. In addition, the final rule includes
installation, maintenance, operating and training requirements related
to the use of carbon monoxide sensors.
Final Sec. 75.1103-4(a), like the proposal, requires that on
December 31, 2009 automatic fire sensor and warning device systems that
use carbon monoxide sensors shall provide identification of fire along
all belt conveyors.
The final rule eliminates the existing requirement to identify the
belt flight on which the system detects fire. When point-type heat
sensors are used for fire detection, they are designed to identify the
belt flight on which the fire occurs. Carbon monoxide sensors provide a
more precise identification of the location, to within 1,000 feet.
The final rule supersedes granted petitions for modification that
allowed mine operators to use carbon monoxide sensors equivalent to
point-type heat sensors. Mines operating under these petitions must
comply with the requirements in the final rule. Mines that have
installed carbon monoxide sensors in lieu of point-type heat sensors
must comply with the final rule.
Commenters supported the proposal. A commenter stated that carbon
monoxide sensors provide for a safer method of detecting fires than
point-type heat sensors.
Final Sec. 75.1103-4(a)(1), like the proposal, requires carbon
monoxide sensors to be installed at specific locations along belt
conveyors. These locations maximize the potential of early warning of a
fire in the belt entry, and are based on Agency experience with the use
of carbon monoxide sensors in underground coal mines.
Final Sec. 75.1103-4(a)(1)(i), like the proposal, requires a
sensor to be placed not more than 100 feet downwind of each belt drive
unit, each tailpiece transfer point, and each belt take-up. If the belt
drive, tailpiece, and/or take-up are installed together in the same air
course, they may be monitored with one sensor located not more than 100
feet downwind of the last component. However, if the distance between
the belt drive unit, tailpiece transfer point, and belt take-up units
exceeds 100 feet, additional sensors are required to monitor each of
these belt conveyor components.
A commenter supported the proposal. Other commenters objected to
the proposal, stating that additional sensors would be unnecessary,
require additional maintenance, and could be the source of false
alarms. Another commenter stated that one sensor should be allowed to
monitor a belt transfer consisting of a drive, take-up, and a tailpiece
if all are in the same ventilation stream.
A commenter was concerned that installation of the sensor at an
existing belt drive could expose miners to risks when working at
heights. To avoid these risks, the commenter stated that these sensors
should not be installed at existing belt drives but only at belt drives
installed in the future.
As stated in the proposal, this requirement is intended to provide
early fire detection at the belt drive where there are multiple belt
components, which are potential fire sources, and the distance between
these components exceeds 100 feet. The final rule allows one sensor to
monitor the drive, take-up, and tailpiece if the distance is less than
100 feet. When sensors need to be installed in high places, the mine
operator can use mechanisms that allow sensors to be temporarily
lowered to a location where they can be safely accessed for maintenance
purposes.
Final Sec. 75.1103-4(a)(1)(ii), like the proposal, requires a
sensor to be installed in the belt entry not more than 100 feet
downwind of each section loading point. This sensor monitors the
section loading point, and provides miners on the section with warning
of fire in the belt entry. A commenter supported the proposal.
Final Sec. 75.1103-4(a)(1)(iii), like the proposal, requires that
sensors be located along the belt entry so that the spacing between
sensors does not exceed 1,000 feet. Where air velocities are less than
50 feet per minute, spacing must not exceed 350 feet.
The 350-foot spacing requirement has been shown in NIOSH research
to provide effective early warning of a fire in the belt entry when the
air velocity is 50 feet per minute or less. The combination of sensor
spacing and air velocity is required to assure that carbon monoxide
produced by a belt fire is transported to the sensor to provide for an
effective warning.
A commenter stated that the spacing requirement should be modified
so that sensors are placed every 500 feet to allow the location of a
fire to be detected with greater accuracy. Another commenter stated
that 2,000 feet spacing of sensors is effective.
Another commenter stated that 500 feet would be more appropriate
spacing for carbon monoxide sensors where the velocity along the belt
is less than 50 feet per minute.
NIOSH research on sensor spacing has shown that 1,000 feet is the
appropriate distance for air velocities of least 50 fpm. Additional
NIOSH research has demonstrated that reduced sensor spacing of 350 feet
is necessary when air velocities are less than 50 fpm to maintain early
fire detection capabilities.
As discussed earlier, MSHA uses representative cross-sectional
areas when determining air velocities. MSHA would not use large areas
(such as belt channels, boom holes, and fall areas) and restricted
areas (such as overcasts) to determine air velocities.
[[Page 80601]]
Proposed Sec. 75.1103-4(a)(1)(iv) has not been included in the
final rule. It would have required sensors to be located upwind, a
distance of no greater than 50 feet from the point where the belt air
course is combined with another air course or splits into multiple air
courses.
A commenter stated that the sensor required under the proposal is
unnecessary because it provides little additional information and
should be addressed in the ventilation plan if needed. MSHA concurs
that this sensor is not necessary. The Agency expects the location of
the sensors required in the final rule will provide precise information
on the location of a fire in the belt entry.
Final Sec. 75.1103-4(a)(1)(iv) is new, clarifies MSHA's intent
under the proposal, and requires that the location and identification
of all carbon monoxide sensors be included on the mine maps required
under existing Sec. Sec. 75.1200 and 75.1505. MSHA has included this
clarification in response to a comment that the location of sensors be
on a mine map that is available to miners. This is consistent with the
existing standard related to identifying the location of stored SCSRs.
Final Sec. 75.1103-4(a)(2), like the proposal, requires that where
used, sensors responding to radiation, smoke, gases, or other
indications of fire, shall be spaced at regular intervals to provide
protection equivalent to carbon monoxide sensors, and installed within
the time specified in this final rule.
The final rule removes the reference to point-type heat sensors and
replaces it with carbon monoxide sensors. As stated earlier, point-type
heat sensors cannot be used for fire detection along belt conveyors.
A commenter supported this proposal and stated that point-type heat
sensors should only be used to activate fire suppression systems.
Final Sec. 75.1103-4(a)(3), like the proposal, requires that when
the distance from the tailpiece at loading points to the first outby
sensor reaches the spacing requirements in Sec. 75.1103-4(a)(1)(iii),
an additional sensor shall be installed and put in operation within 24
production shift hours. When sensors of the kind described in paragraph
(a)(2) of this section are used, they shall be installed and put in
operation within 24 production shift hours after the equivalent
distance that has been established for the sensor from the tailpiece at
loading points to the first outby sensor is first reached.
The final rule removes the 125-foot spacing requirement for point-
type heat sensors and replaces it with conforming requirements for
carbon monoxide sensor spacing. Because point-type heat sensors are no
longer permitted, spacing for the devices is no longer applicable.
Carbon monoxide sensors must be added when the distance from the
section loading point to the first outby sensor reaches 1,000 feet when
air velocity is at least 50 feet per minute, and 350 feet if the
velocity is less than 50 feet per minute. A commenter supported the
proposal.
Final Sec. 75.1103-4(b), like the proposal, requires that sensors
be installed to minimize the possibility of damage from roof falls and
the moving belt and its load. The sensors must be installed near the
center in the upper third of the entry, in a manner that does not
expose personnel working on the fire detection system to unsafe
conditions. The final rule requires that sensors not be located in
abnormally high areas or in other locations where air flow patterns do
not permit products of combustion to be carried to the sensors.
MSHA based this requirement on the results of NIOSH research and
Agency experience with carbon monoxide sensors. Data has shown that
during both smoldering and open combustion fires, the products of
combustion stratify, leaving higher concentrations of smoke and carbon
monoxide near the mine roof. Based on this, NIOSH recommended
installing sensors near the roof of the entry to take advantage of
stratification. MSHA's experience is that when operators do not
properly install sensors, fire detection can be hindered or delayed.
For example, sensors that are installed behind equipment or other
obstructions may not be exposed to the products of combustion contained
in the air stream, thereby impairing their ability to provide for
effective fire detection.
The final rule requires sensors to be installed near the center,
and in the upper third, of the belt entry. In most cases, the safest
location for installing a sensor is from a roof bolt plate or belt
hanger located beside the belt along the walkway. This prevents miners
from being exposed to hazards such as a moving belt when calibrating or
examining sensors. A commenter supported the proposal.
The final rules, and those in Sec. Sec. 75.1103-5, 75.1103-6, and
75.1103-8 discussed below, address Panel Recommendation 8. The Panel
recommended that MSHA initiate rulemaking to discontinue the use of
point-type heat sensors for early-warning and detection of conveyor
belt fires in all underground coal mines.
In making its recommendation, the Panel examined research comparing
the fire detection capabilities of carbon monoxide sensors and point-
type heat sensors. The Panel concluded that there are inherent
inadequacies with point-type heat sensors for reliable early-warning
belt fire detection. According to the Panel's report, carbon monoxide
sensors can detect fires at an earlier stage of fire development than
point-type heat sensors. The Panel found the time it took for point-
type heat sensors to alarm during a fire was much longer than the time
it took carbon monoxide sensors to alarm. The Panel also found that the
location and spacing of point-type heat sensors relative to fire
location could result in fires not being detected in a timely manner.
Research and accident investigation reports on fires have
consistently shown that carbon monoxide sensors are superior to point-
type heat sensors. MSHA's accident investigation report of the Dilworth
mine fire (MSHA, 1992 Greene County, PA), revealed that carbon monoxide
sensors were superior to point-type heat sensors, where both sensors
were installed in the same belt entry. The ignition source of the fire
was located nearly midway between two heat sensors spaced at 50 feet.
The fire was detected by the carbon monoxide sensor located 1,400 feet
downwind of the fire. The fire was extinguished by miners without
injury and with only little damage in the belt entry. The heat sensors
installed along the belt did not detect the fire.
Section 75.1103-5--Automatic Fire Warning Devices; Actions and
Response.
Final Sec. 75.1103-5, like the proposal, has been retitled. It
adds requirements for initiating warning signals and responses for
automating fire warning devices.
Final Sec. 75.1103-5(a), like the proposal, requires that when the
carbon monoxide level reaches 10 parts per million (ppm) above the
established ambient level at any sensor location, an effective warning
signal must be provided at specific locations.
Consistent with MSHA's existing standards for a warning signal to
be effective, they must be located where they can be seen or heard.
MSHA experience also shows that an action level at 10 parts per million
above the ambient level provides an effective warning of a fire and
allows miners the opportunity to safely evacuate the affected area.
The Agency solicited comments on the proposal. A commenter
supported it. Another commenter stated that at mines
[[Page 80602]]
not using air from the belt entry to ventilate working sections, a
warning level should be given at 10 ppm and an alarm at 15 ppm. The
final rule is based on a NIOSH research recommendation that a carbon
monoxide fire warning and withdrawal of miners be initiated at 10 ppm
above the ambient level.
Final Sec. 75.1103-5(a)(1), like the proposal, requires effective
warning signals to be provided to working sections and other work
locations where miners may be endangered from a fire in the belt entry.
Locations where miners may be endangered would include working
sections, areas where mechanized mining equipment is being installed or
removed, permanent work locations, and other locations specified in the
Mine Emergency Evacuation and Firefighting Program of Instruction
required under existing Sec. 75.1502. A commenter supported the
proposal.
Final Sec. 75.1103-5(a)(2), like the proposal, requires that the
warning signal be provided at a manned surface location where personnel
have an assigned post of duty.
MSHA believes that providing the warning at a manned surface
location will facilitate timely and effective evacuation of miners and
improve communication with mine management. This will also facilitate
more effective decision-making in a mine emergency and allow for
required communication with local emergency response personnel,
appropriate state agencies, and MSHA. This is consistent with the
Emergency Response Plan requirement in Section 2 of the MINER Act for
local communication.
Commenters requested clarification on the term ``assigned post of
duty''. Another commenter supported the proposal. The term ``assigned
post of duty'' is not new and was in a requirement for mines using
point-type heat sensors. It refers to the location where miners are
regularly assigned to work and are able to see or hear the warning
signal.
Final Sec. 75.1103-5(a)(2)(i), like the proposal, retains the
existing requirement for having a telephone or equivalent communication
with all miners who may be endangered.
A commenter stated that the final rule should also recognize a PED
(personal emergency device) as an equivalent communication. A PED is
not equivalent to a telephone because it does not provide two way
communications, which is essential during a mine emergency.
Final Sec. 75.1103-5(a)(2)(ii), like the proposal, is new. It
requires a mine map or schematic that shows the location of sensors and
the intended air flow direction at these locations to be posted at the
manned surface location. This map or schematic must be updated within
24 hours of any change in information.
The final rule is necessary to assure that the location of a
potential fire can be identified in a timely manner. With the use of
carbon monoxide sensors, a fire location is identified by specific
sensors. The sensor locations are most easily identifiable by using a
map or schematic. The air directions are needed to facilitate fire
fighting activities and evacuation in the event of a fire, explosion or
other emergency.
A commenter stated that this information should also be on the mine
bulletin board so that it is available to miners. The final rule has
been changed to specify that the location of all carbon monoxide
sensors be included on the mine maps required under Sec. Sec. 75.1200
and 75.1505. These maps are available to miners.
Final Sec. 75.1103-5(a)(3), like the proposal, is derived from the
existing standard, and has not been changed, except for the numbering.
Final Sec. Sec. 75.1103-5(d) through (h), like the proposal, are
new provisions which specify responses required to signals from the
automatic fire warning devices. They are consistent with requirements
for responses to AMS signals in existing Sec. 75.352 and apply to all
mines using belt haulage.
Final Sec. Sec. 75.1103-5(d), like the proposal, requires that
when a malfunction or warning signal is received at the surface
location, the sensor must be identified and appropriate personnel be
immediately notified. Depending upon the circumstances at the mine,
appropriate personnel may include the mine foreman, mine electrician,
or other persons responsible for maintaining the sensors.
Final Sec. 75.1103-5(e), like the proposal, requires that upon
notification of a malfunction or warning signal, appropriate personnel
must immediately initiate an investigation to determine the cause of
the malfunction or warning signal and take the required action set
forth in Sec. 75.1103-5(f). The final rule requires immediate
corrective actions to assure that the appropriate responses are taken
in case of an emergency.
Commenters requested clarification on the term immediately as used
in the proposal because the responses required may take longer than 15
minutes to accomplish. Another commenter supported the proposal.
The term immediately in the final rule means that the required
actions must be promptly initiated after a malfunction or warning
signal is received. The amount of time it takes to resolve the issue
depends on the occurrence. MSHA does not intend that the use of the
term immediate in the final rule be defined by the 15-minute immediate
accident notification requirement in existing Sec. 50.10.
Final Sec. 75.1103-5(f), like the proposal, requires specific
procedures to be followed if any sensor indicates a warning, unless the
mine operator determines that the signal does not present a hazard to
miners.
For example, if the operator knows that the warning signal is
caused by cutting and welding or calibration of a sensor, actions would
not have to be taken. MSHA believes that actions in response to carbon
monoxide malfunction or warning signals are needed to assure that the
protective early-warning capabilities of the carbon monoxide sensor
result in timely action and rapid evacuation in case of emergency.
Final Sec. 75.1103-5(f)(1), like the proposal, requires
appropriate personnel to notify miners in affected working sections, in
affected areas where mechanized mining equipment is being installed or
removed, and at other locations specified in the existing approved mine
emergency evacuation and firefighting program of instruction when a
warning signal is received.
Commenters questioned the need for appropriate personnel to notify
miners in addition to providing the automatic signal. Another commenter
supported the proposal.
It is necessary for appropriate personnel to notify miners, in
addition to the automatic signal, to assure that miners receive the
warning and withdrawal is initiated. Notification under this final
standard facilitates two-way communication among those involved and
those responsible for addressing the emergency, and thus enhances
successful decision-making.
Final Sec. 75.1103-5(f)(2), like the proposal, requires all miners
in the affected areas to be immediately withdrawn to a safe location
identified in the mine emergency evacuation and firefighting program of
instruction upon notification of a warning signal. Under the final
rule, miners who are assigned emergency response duties do not have to
be withdrawn.
Commenters stated that immediate withdrawal of all miners in
affected areas upon notification of a warning signal without
investigation would be a problem when there are false alarms.
[[Page 80603]]
Another commenter supported the proposal.
Once a warning signal is received, there is a significant
likelihood that a fire has occurred and, in the confined area of an
underground mine, miners must be immediately withdrawn. Waiting for the
results of an investigation could put miners at risk of being trapped
by the fire. If false alarms are occurring, the mine operator should
take action to reduce those alarms, such as installing diesel-
discriminating or hydrogen-insensitive sensors, or programming time
delays.
Final Sec. 75.1103-5(g), like the proposal, requires that, if the
warning signal will be activated during calibration of sensors,
personnel manning the surface location must be notified prior to and
upon completion of calibration. The final rule is changed to require
that the notification be provided to affected working sections and
other areas where miners may be endangered.
This requirement is necessary so that miners know that a warning
signal is not a fire. This will apply only at mines where calibration
of sensors would cause activation of warning signals; many sensors have
a calibration mode, where warning signals are blocked during
calibration.
A commenter stated that the proposal could be read to require that
notice be provided to each miner before calibration of sensors can
begin. Another commenter supported the proposal.
Under the proposal, MSHA did not intend that the mine operator
directly notify each miner on the section before calibration of sensors
can begin. The mine operator must assure that appropriate personnel on
the section are notified, who will then be responsible for informing
other miners of warning signals caused by calibration.
Final Sec. 75.1103-5(h), like the proposal, requires that if any
fire detection component becomes inoperative, immediate action must be
taken to repair the component. While repairs are being made, the belt
may continue to operate if the requirements in final Sec. Sec.
75.1103-5(h)(1) through (h)(6) are met.
Final Sec. 75.1103-5(h)(1), like the proposal, requires that when
only one sensor is inoperative, continued operation of the belt is
permitted when a trained person is stationed at the sensor and monitors
the air for carbon monoxide using a hand-held detector.
Final Sec. 75.1103-5(h)(2), like the proposal, requires that when
two or more adjacent sensors are inoperative, continued operation of
the belt is permitted if the area monitored by these sensors is
patrolled so the area is traveled each hour in its entirety.
Alternatively, a trained person must be stationed at each inoperative
sensor to monitor for carbon monoxide.
Final Sec. 75.1103-5(h)(3), like the proposal, requires that if
the complete fire detection system becomes inoperative continued
operation of the belt is permitted if the area monitored by these
sensors is patrolled so the area is traveled each hour in its entirety.
Final Sec. 75.1103-5(h)(4), like the proposal, requires the
trained persons who conduct monitoring under the final rule to have
two-way voice communication capability at intervals not to exceed 2,000
feet. The final rule requires that persons conducting monitoring must
report carbon monoxide levels to the surface at intervals not to exceed
one hour.
Final Sec. 75.1103-5(h)(5), like the proposal, requires that
trained persons who conduct monitoring under the final rule to
immediately report to the surface any concentration of carbon monoxide
that reaches 10 parts per million above the established ambient level,
unless the mine operator knows that the source of the carbon monoxide
does not present a hazard to miners.
Final Sec. 75.1103-5(h)(6), like the proposal, requires that
handheld detectors used to monitor the belt entry under the final rule
have a detection level equivalent to that of the carbon monoxide
sensors.
These requirements assure that repairs are made in a timely manner
so that the fire detection system will remain capable of warning miners
of a fire in the belt entry. Otherwise, the belt must be taken out of
service until necessary repairs are made. A commenter supported the
proposal.
Section 75.1103-6--Automatic Fire Sensors; Actuation of Fire
Suppression Systems
Final Sec. 75.1103-6, like the proposal, specifies that point-type
heat sensors or automatic fire sensor and warning device systems may be
used to activate fire suppression systems.
Although the Panel recommended discontinuing the use of point-type
heat sensors for fire detection, it recognized a benefit in allowing
them to be used for activating fire suppression systems. Consistent
with the Panel's recommendation, point-type heat sensors may continue
to be used to actuate deluge-type water systems, foam generator
systems, multipurpose dry-powder systems, or other equivalent automatic
fire suppression systems. A commenter supported the proposal.
Section 75.1103-8--Automatic Fire Sensor and Warning Device Systems;
Examination and Test Requirements
Final Sec. 75.1103-8(a), like the proposal, requires that
automatic fire sensor and warning device systems be examined at least
once each shift when belts are operated as part of a production shift,
and a functional test of the warning signals be made at least once
every seven days. The final rule does not include the term inspection
that was in the proposal to clarify that examination and maintenance of
the system must be made by a qualified person.
Increased frequency of examinations and functional tests of the
system better assures that the system will effectively maintain its
fire warning capability so that it can provide adequate warning to
miners in the event of a fire. The increased examinations will also
alert the mine operator to any damaged or missing sensors and alarm
units.
Under the final rule, the functional test must be completed at
intervals not to exceed 7 days. MSHA expects the functional test to
verify that warning signals are effective at all locations where these
signals are provided. Consistent with existing practice, MSHA expects
that functional tests will include application of carbon monoxide gas
to the sensors necessary to activate each warning signal. These
functional tests are needed to assure that the system retains its fire
warning capability so that it will provide the proper warning signal in
case of emergency.
The Agency believes that the examination requirements can be
integrated into required preshift and on-shift examinations under
existing Sec. Sec. 75.360 and 75.362. The examinations should identify
any problems with sensors such as improper installation, damaged or
missing sensors, cables and alarm units.
A commenter objected to the weekly testing requirement in the
proposal. Other commenters stated that presently carbon monoxide
sensors are tested and calibrated monthly and that increasing the
frequency of testing will increase maintenance costs and reduce the
life of carbon monoxide sensors. These commenters also requested
clarification on whether the functional testing could be performed
monthly.
Commenters also requested that the Agency clarify the terms
inspection and examination, which are used interchangeably in the
proposal. These commenters also requested clarification on whether a
functional test must be performed on each sensor every seven days and
whether gas must be applied
[[Page 80604]]
as part of the testing procedure. They stated that weekly testing would
be burdensome for large mines and that monthly functional testing and
calibration would be sufficient.
Another commenter supported the proposal, stating that it provided
the upkeep needed for the carbon monoxide sensors to maintain their
accuracy.
Under the final rule, the weekly functional test does not require
carbon monoxide to be applied to every sensor. The purpose of the test
is to determine if the alarm units are working properly. Carbon
monoxide only needs to be applied to a sufficient number of sensors to
activate every alarm. For example, to satisfy this requirement, carbon
monoxide could be applied to only one sensor on each section to
activate the alarm. Alternatively, a single sensor could be installed
on the surface or underground that is programmed to activate all alarms
in the mine.
The functional test must be conducted at least once every seven
days. The seven-day frequency is consistent with the Agency's existing
testing procedures for carbon monoxide sensors for all mines using
these sensors in lieu of point-type heat sensors. The functional tests
are currently being performed, either as part of an approved mine
ventilation plan or a granted petition for modification.
Final Sec. 75.1103-8(b), like the proposal, requires that the mine
operator maintain a record of the functional tests and keep the records
for a period of one year.
Maintaining records for one year is consistent with other
recordkeeping requirements, and would indicate to MSHA how warning
signals operate over the course of a year. Like the proposal, the final
rule deletes the existing requirement that a record card of the weekly
inspection of point-type heat sensors be kept at each belt drive since
the final rule requires carbon monoxide sensors.
Commenters requested that the final rule specify where the records
of functional tests are to be located and maintained. Under the final
rule, mine operators can determine how and where records would be
maintained so long as they are kept for a period of one year.
Final Sec. 75.1103-8(c), like the proposal, requires that carbon
monoxide sensors be calibrated according to manufacturer's instructions
at intervals not to exceed 31 days. In addition, the final rule
requires a record of sensor calibrations to be kept for a period of one
year.
MSHA experience and data have shown this interval to be an
appropriate time period to assure that carbon monoxide sensors respond
effectively and reliably in the event of a fire. The record will
provide the mine operator with information to make necessary repairs
and maintain the system, and will allow MSHA to verify that these
corrective actions were taken in a timely manner. Comments supported
the proposal.
The final rule also makes conforming changes to existing Sec.
75.1103-10. The final rule removes the reference to belt that is not
fire resistant and to the maximum distance between point-type heat
sensors. No substantive changes were made to the existing standard.
Subpart R--Miscellaneous
Section 75.1731--Maintenance of Belt Conveyors and Belt Conveyor
Entries
Final Sec. 75.1731(a) modifies the proposal, and requires that
damaged rollers, or other damaged belt conveyor components, which pose
a fire hazard must be immediately repaired or replaced. Under the final
rule, all other damaged rollers, or other damaged belt conveyor
components, must be repaired or replaced.
Final Sec. 75.1731(b), like the proposal, requires that conveyor
belts be properly aligned to prevent the moving belt from rubbing
against the support structure or components.
Final Sec. 75.1731(c) modifies the proposal, and prohibits
materials in the belt conveyor entry where the material may contribute
to a frictional heating hazard.
Final Sec. 75.1731(d), like the proposal, requires that splicing
of any approved conveyor belt must maintain flame-resistant properties
of the belt.
These requirements address Panel Recommendations 1, 5, 6 and 14
regarding belt entry and conveyor belt maintenance. They apply to all
underground coal mines using belt haulage.
In its report, the Panel recommended that MSHA rigorously enforce
existing standards on underground conveyor belt maintenance and fire
protection, and improve inspection procedures. The Panel also stated
that MSHA should focus on required examinations of the belt lines by
mine examiners to assure each belt is kept in good working order. The
Panel identified the following areas for increased attention by belt
examiners: belts rubbing stands; damaged rollers; inadequate rock
dusting; and accumulations of materials.
In its report, the Panel cited the findings of MSHA's investigation
into the Aracoma Alma Mine No. 1 belt fire as evidence of inadequate
belt maintenance (MSHA Fatal Accident Report, Aracoma, Logan County,
WV, 2007). MSHA identified deficiencies in belt maintenance and
examinations as root causes of the fire.
MSHA believes prevention of belt fires is a critical element in
improving miners' safety, and proper maintenance and examinations will
reduce the likelihood of fires. Improper belt examinations can lead to
uncorrected hazards. This can result in frictional heating of
combustibles in the belt entry, which could cause a fire. These
requirements will assure that mine operators will implement proper mine
examination and maintenance procedures and that belt examiners will
identify and correct hazardous conditions in the conveyor belt entry to
improve safety of miners.
Existing Sec. 75.400 addresses accumulation of combustible
materials, but it does not address materials in the belt entry that may
contribute to a frictional heating hazard. These materials may include
rock, trash, discarded conveyor belt parts, posts, and cribs. These
materials may become potential frictional ignition sources and result
in a belt fire. MSHA does not intend that these materials include rock
dust used in the belt entry.
It is essential that any splices in the belt maintain the fire
resistant properties of the belt so that the belt will continue to
perform as intended in the approval and it will not easily ignite or be
a source of fuel for a fire. MSHA recognizes the need to address
splicing of the belt so that the materials and processes used in
splicing do not compromise the flame resistant properties of the belt.
Because splicing is a belt maintenance issue, it is included in this
final rule.
A commenter stated that damaged rollers and other malfunctioning
belt components can result in the frictional heating of combustibles.
This commenter also stated that damaged rollers can be identified
during the preshift examination and repaired or replaced at the
beginning of the next shift.
Commenters requested clarification of the proposed terms damaged,
malfunctioning, and immediately. Commenters also objected to the
proposed term immediately because the proposal did not connect the
requirement for immediate replacement of the damaged belt roller or
malfunctioning component with a hazardous condition. A commenter also
noted that immediate replacement of damaged belt rollers or
malfunctioning components is not always feasible or practical, and that
it may be more
[[Page 80605]]
appropriate for replacement to occur on a maintenance shift. These
commenters also stated that existing regulations adequately address
this concern.
In response to comments, the final rule does not include the
reference to malfunctioning belt conveyor components, and clarifies
that immediate repair or replacement is only required when damaged
rollers, or other damaged belt conveyor components, pose a fire hazard.
All other damaged rollers, or other damaged belt conveyor components,
must be repaired.
A commenter stated that where the accumulation of noncombustible
materials does not create an immediate fire hazard, miners should
correct the condition on the next shift.
Another commenter stated that the proposal was unnecessary and
vague. Commenters wanted the terms noncombustible and accumulation
clarified, and the final rule to address frictional heating or
ignition. These commenters wanted clarification of whether the
accumulation of waste rock, rock dust, gob materials, or other
noncombustible materials would be prohibited. Commenters also wanted to
know whether an accumulation of noncombustible materials in a crosscut
would be prohibited. Other commenters stated that existing regulations
adequately address the proposal.
After reviewing all comments, the final rule is changed from the
proposal to require that materials not be allowed in the belt conveyor
entry if the material may contribute to a frictional heating hazard.
Under the final rule, materials may be stored in crosscuts or other
locations if they do not contribute to a hazard.
Existing Sec. 75.1725(a) contains inspection and maintenance
requirements applicable to mobile and stationary machinery and
equipment, including conveyor belts. Based on its experience, MSHA does
not believe that this standard or other existing standards
appropriately address the Panel's concerns regarding potential hazards
resulting from inadequate examinations by belt examiners and inadequate
maintenance. These hazards are caused by misalignment of the belt,
damaged rollers and other belt components, and materials that may
contribute to a frictional heating hazard.
Several commenters asked how MSHA would determine that splices
maintain the flame-resistant properties of the belt. During the
rulemaking process, and at the public hearings, MSHA specifically
raised the issue of how the Agency should determine flame resistance
and indicated that the Agency was considering implementing a program to
evaluate splice kits.
In response to these comments, MSHA will, at the request of
approval holders or mine operators, make a suitability evaluation to
determine if a splice kit maintains flame-resistant properties of the
belt. This approach will be similar to the evaluations MSHA makes for
stoppings and sealants. MSHA will place a list of suitable splice kits
on the Agency's Web site and provide the list to interested
stakeholders. Under the final rule, splice kits which have been
evaluated by MSHA must be used when splicing Part 14 belts after
December 31, 2009.
IV. Regulatory Economic Analysis
A. Executive Order 12866
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 requires that regulatory agencies
assess both the costs and benefits of regulations. To comply with E.O.
12866, MSHA has prepared a Regulatory Economic Analysis (REA) for the
final rule. The REA contains supporting data and explanation for the
summary economic materials presented in this preamble, including data
on the mining industry, costs and benefits, feasibility, small business
impacts, and paperwork. The REA is located on MSHA's Web site at http:/
/www.msha.gov/REGSINFO.HTM. A copy of the REA can be obtained from
MSHA's Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances at the address in
the ADDRESSES section of the preamble.
Under E.O. 12866, a significant regulatory action is one meeting
any of a number of specified conditions, including the following:
Having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
creating a serious inconsistency or interfering with an action of
another agency, materially altering the budgetary impact of
entitlements or the rights of entitlement recipients, or raising novel
legal or policy issues. Based on the REA, MSHA has determined that the
final rule will not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on
the economy and that, therefore, it is not an economically significant
regulatory action. MSHA has concluded that the final rule is otherwise
significant because it raises novel legal or policy issues.
B. Population at Risk
The final rule will apply to all underground coal mines in the
United States. As of 2007, MSHA data reveal that there were 624
underground coal mines, employing 42,207 miners, operating in the
United States.
C. Benefits
MSHA has evaluated the safety benefits of the final rule on
improved flame-resistant conveyor belts, fire prevention and detection,
and approval of the use of air from the belt entry to ventilate the
working sections in underground coal mines. The final rule will
implement Section 11 of the MINER Act and the recommendations of the
Technical Study Panel (Panel) on the Utilization of Belt Air and The
Composition and Fire Retardant Properties of Belt Materials in
Underground Coal Mining.
The final rule on improved flame-resistant conveyor belts will
reduce belt entry fires in underground coal mines and will prevent
related fatalities and injuries. From 1980 to 2007, there were 65
reportable belt entry fires. Almost all involved the conveyor belt
itself. These fires caused over two dozen injuries and three deaths--
one in 1986 at the Florence No. 1 Mine, and two in 2006 at the Aracoma
Alma No. 1 Mine. The Technical Study Panel noted that the number of
belt fires had decreased over the past decade, but that the rate (i.e.,
number of fires per thousand mines) has remained constant. The Panel
also noted that during this same period, although underground coal
production increased so that the number of belt fires per 100 million
tons decreased, there was high variability from year to year. The final
rule will prevent conveyor belt fires and, in turn, reduce accidents,
injuries, and deaths caused by conveyor belt fires.
The final rule on fire prevention and detection and approval of the
use of air from the belt entry in underground coal mines will improve
miner safety. The requirements addressing maintenance of the belt
conveyor and belt conveyor entry will improve safety of miners by
requiring related hazards to be corrected. These hazards, known to be
sources of belt fire ignitions, include damaged and missing rollers and
belt misalignment. For example, the MSHA Investigation Report of the
Aracoma Alma Mine No.1 fire determined that the fire occurred as a
result of the frictional heating due to a misaligned belt. The final
rule will also require that damaged components be repaired or replaced
and that materials contributing to a frictional heating hazard not be
allowed in the belt entry.
The requirement to replace point-type heat sensors with carbon
monoxide sensors for fire detection along belt conveyors in all
underground coal mines will enhance miner safety because carbon
monoxide sensors provide earlier fire detection. Earlier fire
[[Page 80606]]
detection allows miners to better address the problem and/or evacuate
the area. MSHA's research and accident investigation reports indicate
that carbon monoxide sensors are superior to point-type heat sensors.
For example, in the 1992 Dilworth Mine fire, the point-type heat
sensors were no more than 27 feet away, but the carbon monoxide sensor
that actually detected the fire was 1,400 feet downwind of the fire.
Based on MSHA's research and experience, replacing point-type heat
sensors with carbon monoxide sensors is an improvement in early fire
warning detection.
Inadequate Atmospheric Monitoring System (AMS) operator training
was identified as a contributing factor in the two fatalities in the
Aracoma fire. Accident investigators found all miners assigned the
duties of an AMS operator at this mine needed additional training to
properly respond to alert, alarm, and malfunction signals generated by
the AMS. The requirement for AMS operator training will improve safety
for miners by assuring that AMS operators will have the knowledge to
respond properly to AMS signals. The training of miners as AMS
operators will assure that MSHA has oversight in the development and
approval of the task training, and annual retraining requirements will
assure that AMS operators retain knowledge and training needed to
perform specific duties and responsibilities. These training
requirements will also assure that AMS operators are familiar with
underground mining systems such as coal haulage, transportation,
ventilation, and escape facilities.
The requirement for a higher ventilating pressure in the primary
escapeway than the belt entry will assure that air leakage moves from
this escapeway to the belt entry. If a fire were to occur in the belt
entry, the primary escapeway will not become contaminated with smoke
and carbon monoxide, thus maintaining the integrity of the escapeway
and providing a safe means of egress for miners.
The requirement for lifelines to be marked with standardized
tactile signals will aid miners evacuating the mine where visibility is
obscured by smoke. New standardized signals will be required to:
Identify the location of personnel doors in adjacent crosscuts
connected to adjacent escapeways; and identify the location of refuge
alternatives. Existing signals for direction of travel and SCSR storage
locations will also be standardized. Standardization will allow for
uniform understanding of the signals so that miners who transfer
between mines will not need to learn new signal systems, and will
reduce the possibility of confusion, delay, or injury during an
emergency.
D. Compliance Costs \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All costs have been rounded; therefore, some total costs may
deviate slightly from the sum of individual costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSHA estimated the first year costs and the yearly costs of the
final rule. MSHA estimated costs to mine operators for the following
requirements: Improved flame-resistant conveyor belt; installation and
maintenance of carbon monoxide sensors in all underground coal mines;
improved maintenance of conveyor belts and conveyor belt entries; AMS
operator duties; standardized lifeline signals; installation of
airlocks along escapeways; maintaining higher pressure in the escapeway
than the belt entry; and an additional sensor and alarm unit on point-
feed regulators in mines using air from the belt entry.
MSHA estimates total first year costs will be approximately $65
million, including approximately $44 million for the improved flame-
resistant belts, and approximately $21 million for the remaining
requirements.
MSHA estimates that the final rule will result in total yearly
costs of approximately $52 million, including approximately $100,000 in
yearly costs to manufacturers of conveyor belts. Yearly costs will be
approximately $5 million for mine operators with fewer than 20
employees, approximately $21,000 per mine for the 223 mines in this
size category. Yearly costs will be approximately $43 million for mine
operators with 20-500 employees, approximately $110,000 per mine for
the 391 mines in this size category. Yearly costs will be approximately
$4 million for mine operators with more than 500 employees,
approximately $410,000 per mine for the 10 mines in this size category.
The $52 million in yearly costs consist of approximately: $40.4
million for improved flame-resistant conveyor belt; $6.3 million for
installation and maintenance of carbon monoxide sensors in all
underground coal mines; $3.5 million for improved maintenance of
conveyor belts and conveyor belt entries; $1 million for AMS operator
duties; $150,000 for standardized lifeline signals; and $73,000 for
other provisions mentioned above.
MSHA estimates the yearly cost for smoke sensors to be
approximately $460,000; however, this amount is based on the cost of
existing smoke sensors and may not reflect their actual cost when
approved for underground mine use. Therefore, this cost is not included
in the yearly costs of the final rule.
Table 1 is a summary of the approximate yearly costs of the final
rule by mine size and requirement.
Table 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final provisions 1-19 employees 20-500 employees 501+ employees Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improved Flame Resistant Belt... $3.3 million...... $33.4 million..... $3.8 million...... $40.4 million.
Improved Flame Resistant Belt n/a............... n/a............... n/a............... $100,000.
(Manufacturers).
CO Sensors...................... $660,000.......... $5.5 million...... $180,000.......... $6.3 million.
Maintenance of belts and belt $750,000.......... $2.6 million...... $130,000.......... $3.5 million.
entries.
AMS Operator duties............. $57,000........... $960,000.......... $29,000........... $1 million.
Lifeline signals................ $16,000........... $130,000.......... $7,300............ $150,000.
Other provisions................ $1,500............ $64,000........... $7,800............ $73,000.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... $5 million........ $43 million....... $4 million........ $52 million.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 80607]]
V. Feasibility
MSHA has concluded that the requirements of the final rule will be
both technologically and economically feasible.
A. Technological Feasibility
The final rule does not involve activities on the frontiers of
scientific knowledge. Aside from final Sec. 75.351(e)(2), compliance
with the provisions of the final rule is technologically feasible
because the materials, equipment, and methods for implementing these
requirements currently exist.
Final section 75.351(e)(2) will require mines that use air from the
belt entry to ventilate working sections to install smoke sensors one
year after approval for use in underground coal mines. At the current
time, smoke sensors are not technologically feasible because these
sensors are not reliable for use in underground coal mining. MSHA will
notify the public when smoke sensors are approved for use in
underground coal mining and become available.
B. Economic Feasibility
The yearly compliance cost of the final rule will be approximately
$51.5 million for underground coal mines, which is 0.37 percent of
annual revenue of $14.0 billion for all underground coal mines. MSHA
concludes that the final rule will be economically feasible for these
mines because the total yearly compliance cost is below one percent of
the estimated annual revenue for all underground coal mines.
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), MSHA
has analyzed the impact of the final rule on small entities. Based on
that analysis, MSHA has notified the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Small
Business Administration (SBA), and made the certification under the RFA
at 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual
basis for this certification is in the REA and summarized below.
A. Definition of a Small Mine
Under the RFA, in analyzing the impact of the final rule on small
entities, MSHA must use the SBA definition for a small entity, or after
consultation with the SBA Office of Advocacy, establish an alternative
definition for the mining industry by publishing that definition in the
Federal Register for notice and comment. MSHA has not established an
alternative definition and is required to use the SBA definition. The
SBA defines a small entity in the mining industry as an establishment
with 500 or fewer employees.
MSHA has also examined the impact of the final rule on underground
coal mines with fewer than 20 employees, which MSHA has traditionally
referred to as ``small mines.'' These small mines differ from larger
mines not only in the number of employees, but also in economies of
scale in material produced, in the type and amount of production
equipment, and in supply inventory. Therefore, the cost of complying
with MSHA's final rule and the impact of the final rule on small mines
will also be different.
This analysis complies with the legal requirements of the RFA for
an analysis of the impact on ``small entities'' while continuing MSHA's
traditional concern for ``small mines.''
B. Factual Basis for Certification
MSHA initially evaluates the impact on small entities by comparing
the estimated compliance cost of a rule for small entities in the
sector affected by the rule to the estimated revenue of the affected
sector. When the estimated compliance cost is less than one percent of
the estimated revenue, the Agency believes it is generally appropriate
to conclude that the rule will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. When the estimated
compliance cost exceeds one percent of revenue, MSHA investigates
whether further analysis is required.
Total underground coal production in 2007 was approximately 278
million tons for mines with 500 or fewer employees. Using the 2007
price of underground coal of $40.29 per ton, MSHA estimates that
underground coal revenue was approximately $11.2 billion for mines with
500 or fewer employees. The yearly cost of the final rule for mines
with 500 or fewer employees is estimated to be approximately $47.4
million, or approximately $77,000 per mine. This is equal to
approximately 0.42 percent of annual revenue. Since the yearly cost of
the final rule is less than one percent of annual revenues for small
underground coal mines, as defined by SBA, MSHA has certified that the
final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number
of small mining entities, as defined by SBA.
Total underground coal production in 2007 was approximately 7.7
million tons for mines with fewer than 20 employees. Using the 2007
price of underground coal of $40.29 per ton, MSHA estimates that
underground coal revenue was approximately $310 million for mines with
fewer than 20 employees. The yearly cost of the final rule for mines
with fewer than 20 employees is estimated to be $4.7 million, or
approximately $22,000 per mine. This is equal to approximately 1.53
percent of annual revenue.
The Agency has provided, in the REA accompanying the final rule, a
complete analysis of the cost impact on this category of mines. MSHA
estimates that some mines might experience costs somewhat higher than
the average per mine in its size category while others might experience
lower costs. Even though the analysis reflects a range of impacts for
different mine sizes, from 0.42 to 1.53 percent of annual revenue, as
noted above, MSHA has certified that the final rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small mining entities, as
defined by SBA.
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
A. Summary
The information collection package for the final rule has been
assigned OMB Control Number 1219-0145. The final rule contains
information collection requirements (ICR) that will affect requirements
in existing paperwork packages with OMB Control Numbers 1219-0009,
1219-0054, 1219-0066, 1219-0073, and 1219-0088. The requirement for AMS
operator training will modify ICR 1219-0009. The requirements for fire
protection will modify ICR 1219-0054. The requirements that affect the
information collected for approval of flame-resistant conveyor belts
will modify ICR 1219-0066. The requirements to amend the mine map will
modify ICR 1219-0073. The requirements that affect the information
contained in the ventilation plan for underground coal mines will
modify ICR 1219-0088.
In the first year that the final rule is in effect, mine operators
will incur 3,344 burden hours with related costs of approximately
$240,000. Annually, starting in the second year that the final rule is
in effect, mine operators will incur 2,350 burden hours with related
costs of approximately $180,000. In addition, conveyor belt
manufacturers will incur 540 burden hours and related costs of $27,000
in the first year that the final rule is in effect; 270 burden hours
and related costs of $13,500 in the second year that the final rule is
in effect; and 170 burden hours and related
[[Page 80608]]
costs of $8,500 in the third year that the final rule is in effect.
Final Sec. 14.7, which requires approval holders to retain initial
sales records of conveyor belts, is considered by MSHA to be an
information collection requirement that does not result in a paperwork
burden because it is considered a part of normal business practices.
For a summary of the burden hours and related costs by final
provision, see the REA accompanying the final rule. The REA is posted
on MSHA's Web site at http://www.msha.gov/REGSINFO.HTM. A copy of the
REA can be obtained from MSHA's Office of Standards, Regulations, and
Variances at the address provided in the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble.
B. Procedural Details
The information collection package, OMB Control Number 1219-0145,
has been submitted to OMB for review under 44 U.S.C. 3504, paragraph
(h) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as amended. A copy of the
information collection package can be obtained from the Department of
Labor by electronic mail request to king.darrin@dol.gov or by phone
request to 202-693-4129.
Paperwork requirements contained in proposed Sec. Sec. 14.4(b) and
75.350(b) received comments. A commenter stated that the actual
formulation data required to be submitted to MSHA under proposed Sec.
14.4(b) is more extensive than currently required and is not needed
since approval is based solely on the BELT results. Another commenter
stated that proposed Sec. 14.4(b)(4) was confusing. Other commenters
also were concerned with proposed provision Sec. 75.350(b) that set
out additional requirements to be included in the mine ventilation
plan. These comments are addressed in earlier sections of this preamble
and in the information collection package supporting this final rule
(OMB control number 1219-0145).
VIII. Other Regulatory Considerations
A. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
MSHA has reviewed the final rule under the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). MSHA has determined that the final
rule will not include any Federal mandate that may result in increased
expenditures by State, local, or tribal governments; and it will not
increase private sector expenditures by more than $100 million in any
one year or significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
Accordingly, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires no
further agency action or analysis.
B. Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999:
Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families
The final rule will have no effect on family well-being or
stability, marital commitment, parental rights or authority, or income
or poverty of families and children. Accordingly, Sec. 654 of the
Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999 (5 U.S.C.
601 note) requires no further agency action, analysis, or assessment.
C. Executive Order 12630: Government Actions and Interference With
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights
The final rule will not implement a policy with takings
implications. Accordingly, Executive Order 12630 requires no further
agency action or analysis.
D. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
The final rule was written to provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct and was carefully reviewed to eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguities, so as to minimize litigation and undue burden
on the Federal court system. Accordingly, the final rule meets the
applicable standards provided in Sec. 3 of Executive Order 12988.
E. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
The final rule will have no adverse impact on children.
Accordingly, Executive Order 13045 requires no further agency action or
analysis.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
The final rule will not have ``federalism implications'' because it
will not ``have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' Accordingly, Executive Order 13132 requires no further
agency action or analysis.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
The final rule will not have ``tribal implications'' because it
will not ``have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal government and Indian tribes.'' Accordingly, Executive
Order 13175 requires no further agency action or analysis.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
The final rule has been reviewed for its impact on the supply,
distribution, and use of energy because it applies to the coal mining
industry. Because the final rule will result in yearly costs of
approximately $51.5 million to the underground coal mining industry,
relative to annual revenues of $14.0 billion in 2007, the final rule is
not a ``significant energy action'' because it is not ``likely to have
a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy * * * (including a shortfall in supply, price increases, and
increased use of foreign supplies).'' Accordingly, Executive Order
13211 requires no further Agency action or analysis.
I. Executive Order 13272: Proper Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking
MSHA has reviewed the final rule to assess and take appropriate
account of its potential impact on small businesses, small governmental
jurisdictions, and small organizations. MSHA has determined and
certified that the final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
IX. Final Rule
List of Subjects
30 CFR Part 6
Testing and evaluation by independent laboratories and non-MSHA
product safety standards, Mine safety and health.
30 CFR Part 14
Approval of equipment, Mine safety and health, Underground mining.
30 CFR Part 18
Electric motor-driven mine equipment and accessories, Mine safety
and health.
30 CFR Part 48
Training and retraining of miners, Mine safety and health.
30 CFR Part 75
Mandatory safety standards--Underground coal mines, Mine safety and
health, Recordkeeping.
[[Page 80609]]
Dated: November 18, 2008.
Richard E. Stickler,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health.
0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, and under the authority of the
Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 as amended by the Mine
Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006, MSHA is amending
chapter I of title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 6--TESTING AND EVALUATION BY INDEPENDENT LABORATORIES AND NON-
MSHA PRODUCT SAFETY STANDARDS
0
1. The authority citation for part 6 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 957.
0
2. Amend Sec. 6.2 by revising the definition of ``Equivalent non-MSHA
product safety standards'' to read as follows:
Sec. 6.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Equivalent non-MSHA product safety standards. A non-MSHA product
safety standard, or group of standards, determined by MSHA to provide
at least the same degree of protection as the applicable MSHA product
approval requirements in parts 14, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 27, 33, 35, and
36, or which in modified form provide at least the same degree of
protection.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 6.20 to revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 6.20 MSHA acceptance of equivalent non-MSHA product safety
standards.
(a) * * *
(1) Provide at least the same degree of protection as MSHA's
product approval requirements in parts 14, 18, 19, 20, 33, 35 and 36 of
this chapter; or
* * * * *
0
4. Add new Part 14 to subchapter B chapter I, title 30 of Code of
Federal Regulations to read as follows:
PART 14--REQUIREMENTS FOR THE APPROVAL OF FLAME-RESISTANT CONVEYOR
BELTS
Subpart A--General Provisions
Sec.
14.1 Purpose and effective date for approval holders.
14.2 Definitions.
14.3 Observers at tests and evaluations.
14.4 Application procedures and requirements.
14.5 Test samples.
14.6 Issuance of approval.
14.7 Approval marking and distribution records.
14.8 Quality assurance.
14.9 Disclosure of information.
14.10 Post-approval product audit.
14.11 Revocation.
Subpart B--Technical Requirements
14.20 Flame resistance.
14.21 Laboratory-scale flame test apparatus.
14.22 Test for flame resistance of conveyor belts.
14.23 New technology.
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 957.
Subpart A--General Provisions
Sec. 14.1 Purpose, effective date for approval holders.
This Part establishes the flame resistance requirements for MSHA
approval of conveyor belts for use in underground coal mines.
Applications for approval or extensions of approval submitted after
December 31, 2008, must meet the requirements of this Part.
Sec. 14.2 Definitions.
The following definitions apply in this part:
Applicant. An individual or organization that manufactures or
controls the production of a conveyor belt and applies to MSHA for
approval of conveyor belt for use in underground coal mines.
Approval. A document issued by MSHA, which states that a conveyor
belt has met the requirements of this Part and which authorizes an
approval marking identifying the conveyor belt as approved.
Extension of approval. A document issued by MSHA, which states that
a change to a product previously approved by MSHA meets the
requirements of this Part and which authorizes the continued use of the
approval marking after the appropriate extension number has been added.
Flame-retardant ingredient. A material that inhibits ignition or
flame propagation.
Flammable ingredient. A material that is capable of combustion.
Inert ingredient. A material that does not contribute to
combustion.
Post-approval product audit. An examination, testing, or both, by
MSHA of an approved conveyor belt selected by MSHA to determine if it
meets the technical requirements and has been manufactured as approved.
Similar conveyor belt. A conveyor belt that shares the same cover
compound, general carcass construction, and fabric type as another
approved conveyor belt.
Sec. 14.3 Observers at tests and evaluations.
Representatives of the applicant and other persons agreed upon by
MSHA and the applicant may be present during tests and evaluations
conducted under this Part. However, if MSHA receives a request from
others to observe tests, the Agency will consider it.
Sec. 14.4 Application procedures and requirements.
(a) Application address. Applications for approvals or extensions
of approval under this Part may be sent to: U.S. Department of Labor,
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Chief, Approval and
Certification Center, 765 Technology Drive, Triadelphia, West Virginia
26059. Alternatively, applications for approval or extensions of
approval may be filed online at http://www.msha.gov or faxed to: Chief,
Mine Safety and Health Administration Approval and Certification Center
at 304-547-2044.
(b) Approval application. Each application for approval of a
conveyor belt for use in underground coal mines must include the
information below, except any information submitted in a prior approval
application need not be re-submitted, but must be noted in the
application.
(1) A technical description of the conveyor belt, which includes:
(i) Trade name or identification number;
(ii) Cover compound type and designation number;
(iii) Belt thickness and thickness of top and bottom covers;
(iv) Presence and type of skim coat;
(v) Presence and type of friction coat;
(vi) Carcass construction (number of plies, solid woven);
(vii) Carcass fabric by textile type and weight (ounces per square
yard);
(viii) Presence and type of breaker or floated ply; and
(ix) The number, type, and size of cords and fabric for metal cord
belts.
(2) The name, address, and telephone number of the applicant's
representative responsible for answering any questions regarding the
application.
(c) Similar belts and extensions of approval may be evaluated for
approval without testing using the BELT method if the following
information is provided in the application:
(1) Formulation information on the compounds in the conveyor belt
indicated by either:
(i) Specifying each ingredient by its chemical name along with its
percentage (weight) and tolerance or percentage range; or
(ii) Specifying each flame-retardant ingredient by its chemical or
generic name with its percentage and tolerance or percentage range or
its minimum percent. List each flammable ingredient and inert
ingredient by chemical,
[[Page 80610]]
generic, or trade name along with the total percentage of all flammable
and inert ingredients.
(2) Identification of any similar approved conveyor belt for which
the applicant already holds an approval, and the formulation
specifications for that belt if it has not previously been submitted to
the Agency.
(i) The MSHA assigned approval number of the conveyor belt that
most closely resembles the new one; and
(ii) An explanation of any changes from the existing approval.
(d) Extension of approval. Any change in an approved conveyor belt
from the documentation on file at MSHA that affects the technical
requirements of this Part must be submitted for approval prior to
implementing the change. Each application for an extension of approval
must include:
(1) The MSHA-assigned approval number for the conveyor belt for
which the extension is sought;
(2) A description of the proposed change to the conveyor belt; and
(3) The name, address, and telephone number of the applicant's
representative responsible for answering any questions regarding the
application.
(e) MSHA will determine if testing, additional information,
samples, or material is required to evaluate an application. If the
applicant believes that flame testing is not required, a statement
explaining the rationale must be included in the application.
(f) Equivalent non-MSHA product safety standard. An applicant may
request an equivalency determination to this part under Sec. 6.20 of
this chapter, for a non-MSHA product safety standard.
(g) Fees. Fees calculated in accordance with Part 5 of this chapter
must be submitted in accordance with Sec. 5.40.
Sec. 14.5 Test samples.
Upon request by MSHA, the applicant must submit 3 precut, unrolled,
flat conveyor belt samples for flame testing. Each sample must be 60
\1/4\ inches long (152.4 0.6 cm) by 9 \1/8\ inches (22.9 0.3 cm) wide.
Sec. 14.6 Issuance of approval.
(a) MSHA will issue an approval or notice of the reasons for
denying approval after completing the evaluation and testing provided
in this part.
(b) An applicant must not advertise or otherwise represent a
conveyor belt as approved until MSHA has issued an approval.
Sec. 14.7 Approval marking and distribution records.
(a) An approved conveyor belt must be marketed only under the name
specified in the approval.
(b) Approved conveyor belt must be legibly and permanently marked
with the assigned MSHA approval number for the service life of the
product. The approval marking must be at least \1/2\ inch (1.27 cm)
high, placed at intervals not to exceed 60 feet (18.3 m) and repeated
at least once every foot (0.3 m) across the width of the belt.
(c) Where the construction of a conveyor belt does not permit
marking as prescribed above, other permanent marking may be accepted by
MSHA.
(d) Applicants granted approval must maintain records of the
initial sale of each belt having an approval marking. The records must
be retained for at least 5 years following the initial sale.
Sec. 14.8 Quality assurance.
Applicants granted an approval or an extension of approval under
this Part must:
(a) In order to assure that the finished conveyor belt will meet
the flame-resistance test--
(1) Flame test a sample of each batch, lot, or slab of conveyor
belts; or
(2) Flame test or inspect a sample of each batch or lot of the
materials that contribute to the flame-resistance characteristic.
(b) Calibrate instruments used for the inspection and testing in
paragraph (a) of this section according to the instrument
manufacturer's specifications. Instruments must be calibrated using
standards set by the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
U.S. Department of Commerce or other nationally or internationally
recognized standards. The instruments used must be accurate to at least
one significant figure beyond the desired accuracy.
(c) Control production so that the conveyor belt is manufactured in
accordance with the approval document. If a third party is assembling
or manufacturing all or part of an approved belt, the approval holder
shall assure that the product is manufactured as approved.
(d) Immediately notify the MSHA Approval and Certification Center
of any information that a conveyor belt has been distributed that does
not meet the specifications of the approval. This notification must
include a description of the nature and extent of the problem, the
locations where the conveyor belt has been distributed, and the
approval holder's plans for corrective action.
Sec. 14.9 Disclosure of information.
(a) All proprietary information concerning product specifications
and performance submitted to MSHA by the applicant will be protected.
(b) MSHA will notify the applicant or approval holder of requests
for disclosure of information concerning its conveyor belts, and
provide an opportunity to present its position prior to any decision on
disclosure.
Sec. 14.10 Post-approval product audit.
(a) Approved conveyor belts will be subject to periodic audits by
MSHA to determine conformity with the technical requirements upon which
the approval was based. MSHA will select an approved conveyor belt to
be audited; the selected belt will be representative of that
distributed for use in mines. Upon request to MSHA, the approval holder
may obtain any final report resulting from the audit.
(b) No more than once a year, except for cause, the approval
holder, at MSHA's request, must make 3 samples of an approved conveyor
belt of the size specified in Sec. 14.5 available at no cost to MSHA
for an audit. If a product is not available because it is not currently
in production, the manufacturer will notify MSHA when it is available.
Representatives of the applicant and other persons agreed upon by MSHA
and the applicant may be present during audit tests and evaluations.
MSHA will also consider requests by others to observe tests.
(c) A conveyor belt will be subject to audit for cause at any time
MSHA believes the approval holder product is not in compliance with the
technical requirements of the approval.
Sec. 14.11 Revocation.
(a) MSHA may revoke for cause an approval issued under this Part if
the conveyor belt--
(1) Fails to meet the technical requirements; or
(2) Creates a danger or hazard when used in a mine.
(b) Prior to revoking an approval, the approval holder will be
informed in writing of MSHA's intention to revoke. The notice will--
(1) Explain the reasons for the proposed revocation; and
(2) Provide the approval holder an opportunity to demonstrate or
achieve compliance with the product approval requirements.
(c) Upon request to MSHA, the approval holder will be given the
opportunity for a hearing.
(d) If a conveyor belt poses an imminent danger to the safety or
health of miners, an approval may be
[[Page 80611]]
immediately suspended without written notice of the Agency's intention
to revoke.
Subpart B--Technical Requirements
Sec. 14.20 Flame resistance.
Conveyor belts for use in underground coal mines must be flame-
resistant and:
(a) Tested in accordance with Sec. 14.22 of this part; or
(b) Tested in accordance with an alternate test determined by MSHA
to be equivalent under 30 CFR Sec. Sec. 6.20 and 14.4(e).
Sec. 14.21 Laboratory-scale flame test apparatus.
The principal parts of the apparatus used to test for flame
resistance of conveyor belts are as follows--
(a) A horizontal test chamber 66 inches (167.6 cm) long by 18
inches (45.7 cm) square (inside dimensions) constructed from 1 inch
(2.5 cm) thick Marinite I[supreg], or equivalent insulating material.
(b) A 16-gauge (0.16 cm) stainless steel duct section which tapers
over a length of at least 24 inches (61 cm) from a 20 inch (51 cm)
square cross-sectional area at the test chamber connection to a 12 inch
(30.5 cm) diameter exhaust duct, or equivalent. The interior surface of
the tapered duct section must be lined with \1/2\ inch (1.27 cm) thick
ceramic blanket insulation, or equivalent insulating material. The
tapered duct must be tightly connected to the test chamber.
(c) A U-shaped gas-fueled impinged jet burner ignition source,
measuring 12 inches (30.5 cm) long and 4 inches (10.2 cm) wide, with
two parallel rows of 6 jets each. Each jet is spaced alternately along
the U-shaped burner tube. The 2 rows of jets are slanted so that they
point toward each other and the flame from each jet impinges upon each
other in pairs. The burner fuel must be at least 98 percent methane
(technical grade) or natural gas containing at least 96 percent
combustible gases, which includes not less than 93 percent methane.
(d) A removable steel rack, consisting of 2 parallel rails and
supports that form a 7 \1/8\ inches (17.8 0.3
cm) wide by 60 \1/8\ inches (152.4 0.3 cm)
long assembly to hold a belt sample.
(1) The 2 parallel rails, with a 5 \1/8\ inches (12.7
0.3 cm) space between them, comprise the top of the rack.
The rails and supports must be constructed of slotted angle iron with
holes along the top surface.
(2) The top surface of the rack must be 8 \1/8\ inches
(20.3 0.3 cm) from the inside roof of the test chamber.
Sec. 14.22 Test for flame resistance of conveyor belts.
(a) Test procedures. The test must be conducted in the following
sequence using a flame test apparatus meeting the specifications of
Sec. 14.21:
(1) Lay three samples of the belt, 60 \1/4\ inches
(152.4 0.6 cm) long by 9 \1/8\ inches (22.9
0.3 cm) wide, flat at a temperature of 70
10[deg] Fahrenheit (21 5[deg] Centigrade) for at least 24
hours prior to the test;
(2) For each of three tests, place one belt sample with the load-
carrying surface facing up on the rails of the rack so that the sample
extends 1 \1/8\ inch (2.5 0.3 cm) beyond the
front of the rails and 1 \1/8\ inch (2.5 0.3
cm) from the outer lengthwise edge of each rail;
(3) Fasten the sample to the rails of the rack with steel washers
and cotter pins. The cotter pins shall extend at least \3/4\ inch (1.9
cm) below the rails. Equivalent fasteners may be used. Make a series of
5 holes approximately \9/32\ inch (0.7 cm) in diameter along both edges
of the belt sample, starting at the first rail hole within 2 inches
(5.1 cm) from the front edge of the sample. Make the next hole 5 \1/4\ inches (12.7 0.6 cm) from the first, the
third hole 5 \1/4\ inches (12.7 0.6 cm) from
the second, the fourth hole approximately midway along the length of
the sample, and the fifth hole near the end of the sample. After
placing a washer over each sample hole, insert a cotter pin through the
hole and spread it apart to secure the sample to the rail;
(4) Center the rack and sample in the test chamber with the front
end of the sample 6 \1/2\ inches (15.2 1.27
cm) from the entrance;
(5) Measure the airflow with a 4-inch (10.2 cm) diameter vane
anemometer, or an equivalent device, placed on the centerline of the
belt sample 12 \1/2\ inches (30.5 1.27 cm)
from the chamber entrance. Adjust the airflow passing through the
chamber to 200 20 ft/min (61 6 m/min);
(6) Before starting the test on each sample, the inner surface
temperature of the chamber roof measured at points 6 \1/
2\, 30 \1/2\, and 60 \1/2\ inches (15.2
1.27, 76.2 1.27, and 152.4 1.27
cm) from the front entrance of the chamber must not exceed 95[deg]
Fahrenheit (35[deg] Centigrade) at any of these points with the
specified airflow passing through the chamber. The temperature of the
air entering the chamber during the test on each sample must not be
less than 50[deg] Fahrenheit (10[deg] Centigrade);
(7) Center the burner in front of the sample's leading edge with
the plane, defined by the tips of the burner jets, \3/4\
\1/8\ inch (1.9 0.3 cm) from the front edge of the belt;
(8) With the burner lowered away from the sample, set the gas flow
at 1.2 0.1 standard cubic feet per minute (SCFM) (34
2.8 liters per minute) and then ignite the gas burner.
Maintain the gas flow to the burner throughout the 5 to 5.1 minute
ignition period;
(9) After applying the burner flame to the front edge of the sample
for a 5 to 5.1 minute ignition period, lower the burner away from the
sample and extinguish the burner flame;
(10) After completion of each test, determine the undamaged portion
across the entire width of the sample. Blistering without charring does
not constitute damage.
(b) Acceptable performance. Each tested sample must exhibit an
undamaged portion across its entire width.
(c) MSHA may modify the procedures of the flammability test for
belts constructed of thicknesses more than \3/4\ inch (1.9 cm).
Sec. 14.23 New technology.
MSHA may approve a conveyor belt that incorporates technology for
which the requirements of this part are not applicable if the Agency
determines that the conveyor belt is as safe as those which meet the
requirements of this part.
PART 18--ELECTRIC MOTOR-DRIVEN MINE EQUIPMENT AND ACCESSORIES
0
5. The authority citation for Part 18 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 957, 961.
Sec. 18.1 [Amended]
0
6. Section 18.1 is amended by revising the phrase ``hoses and conveyor
belts'' to read ``hoses''.
Sec. 18.2 [Amended]
0
7. Section 18.2 is amended by revising the phrase ``hose or conveyor
belt'' to read ``hose'' in the definitions of ``Acceptance'',
``Acceptance Marking'', and ``Applicant'' and removing the definition
for ``Fire-resistant''.
Sec. 18.6 [Amended]
0
8. Section 18.6(a)(1) is amended by revising the phrase ``hose or
conveyor belt'' to read ``hose''.
0
9. Section 18.6(c) is removed and reserved.
0
10. Section 18.6(i) is amended by revising the phrase ``hose or
conveyor belt'' to read ``hose'' and removing the words ``conveyor
belt--a sample of each type 8 inches long cut across the entire width
of the belt''.
[[Page 80612]]
Sec. 18.9 [Amended]
0
11. Section 18.9(a) is amended by revising the phrase ``hose or
conveyor belt'' to read ``hose''.
Sec. 18.65 [Amended]
0
12. Section 18.65 is amended by revising the section heading to read
``Flame test of hose'' and by removing and reserving paragraph (a)(1)
and removing and reserving paragraph (f)(1).
PART 48--TRAINING AND RETRAINING OF MINERS
0
13. The authority citation for Part 48 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811, 825.
Subpart B--Training and Retraining of Miners Working at Surface
Mines and Surface Areas of Underground Mines
0
14. Amend Sec. 48.27 to revise the first sentence in paragraph (a)
introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 48.27 Training of miners assigned to a task in which they have
had no previous experience; minimum courses of instruction.
(a) Miners assigned to new work tasks as mobile equipment
operators, drilling machine operators, haulage and conveyor systems
operators, ground control machine operators, AMS operators, and those
in blasting operations shall not perform new work tasks in these
categories until training prescribed in this paragraph and paragraph
(b) of this section has been completed.* * *
* * * * *
PART 75--MANDATORY SAFETY STANDARDS--UNDERGROUND COAL MINES
Subpart B--Qualified and Certified Persons
0
15. The authority citation for Part 75 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811.
0
16. Section 75.156 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 75.156 AMS operator, qualifications.
(a) To be qualified as an AMS operator, a person shall be provided
with task training on duties and responsibilities at each mine where an
AMS operator is employed in accordance with the mine operator's
approved Part 48 training plan.
(b) An AMS operator must be able to demonstrate to an authorized
representative of the Secretary that he/she is qualified to perform in
the assigned position.
Subpart D--Ventilation
0
17. In Sec. 75.333, paragraph (c)(4) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 75.333 Ventilation controls.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(4) An airlock shall be established where the air pressure
differential between air courses creates a static force exceeding 125
pounds on closed personnel doors along escapeways.
* * * * *
0
18. In Sec. 75.350, paragraphs (a)(2), (b) introductory text, (b)(3),
and (d)(1) are revised, and (b)(7) and (b)(8) are added to read as
follows:
Sec. 75.350 Belt air course ventilation.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(2) Effective December 31, 2009, the air velocity in the belt entry
must be at least 50 feet per minute. When requested by the mine
operator, the district manager may approve lower velocities in the
ventilation plan based on specific mine conditions. Air velocities must
be compatible with all fire detection systems and fire suppression
systems used in the belt entry.
(b) The use of air from a belt air course to ventilate a working
section, or an area where mechanized mining equipment is being
installed or removed, shall be permitted only when evaluated and
approved by the district manager in the mine ventilation plan. The mine
operator must provide justification in the plan that the use of air
from a belt entry would afford at least the same measure of protection
as where belt haulage entries are not used to ventilate working places.
In addition, the following requirements must be met:
* * * * *
(3)(i) The average concentration of respirable dust in the belt air
course, when used as a section intake air course, must be maintained at
or below 1.0 mg/m\3\.
(ii) Where miners on the working section are on a reduced standard
below 1.0 mg/m\3\, the average concentration of respirable dust in the
belt entry must be at or below the lowest applicable respirable dust
standard on that section.
(iii) A permanent designated area (DA) for dust measurements must
be established at a point no greater than 50 feet upwind from the
section loading point in the belt entry when the belt air flows over
the loading point or no greater than 50 feet upwind from the point
where belt air is mixed with air from another intake air course near
the loading point. The DA must be specified and approved in the
ventilation plan.
* * * * *
(7) The air velocity in the belt entry must be at least 100 feet
per minute. When requested by the mine operator, the district manager
may approve lower velocities in the ventilation plan based on specific
mine conditions.
(8) The air velocity in the belt entry must not exceed 1,000 feet
per minute. When requested by the mine operator, the district manager
may approve higher velocities in the ventilation plan based on specific
mine conditions.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) The air current that will pass through the point-feed regulator
must be monitored for carbon monoxide or smoke at a point within 50
feet upwind of the point-feed regulator. A second point must be
monitored 1,000 feet upwind of the point-feed regulator unless the mine
operator requests that a lesser distance be approved by the district
manager in the mine ventilation plan based on mine specific conditions;
* * * * *
0
19. Paragraph (b)(2), (e), and (q) of Sec. 75.351 are revised to read
as follows:
Sec. 75.351 Atmospheric monitoring systems.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) The mine operator must designate an AMS operator to monitor and
promptly respond to all AMS signals. The AMS operator must have as a
primary duty the responsibility to monitor the malfunction, alert and
alarm signals of the AMS, and to notify appropriate personnel of these
signals. In the event of an emergency, the sole responsibility of the
AMS operator shall be to respond to the emergency.
* * * * *
(e) Location of sensors-belt air course.
(1) In addition to the requirements of paragraph (d) of this
section, any AMS used to monitor belt air courses under Sec. 75.350(b)
must have approved sensors to monitor for carbon monoxide at the
following locations:
(i) At or near the working section belt tailpiece in the air stream
ventilating the belt entry. In longwall mining systems the sensor must
be located upwind in the belt entry at a distance no greater than 150
feet from the mixing point where intake air is mixed with the belt air
at or near the tailpiece;
(ii) No more than 50 feet upwind from the point where the belt air
course is combined with another air course or splits into multiple air
courses;
[[Page 80613]]
(iii) At intervals not to exceed 1,000 feet along each belt entry.
However, in areas along each belt entry where air velocities are
between 50 and 100 feet per minute, spacing of sensors must not exceed
500 feet. In areas along each belt entry where air velocities are less
than 50 feet per minute, the sensor spacing must not exceed 350 feet;
(iv) Not more than 100 feet downwind of each belt drive unit, each
tailpiece, transfer point, and each belt take-up. If the belt drive,
tailpiece, and/or take-up for a single transfer point are installed
together in the same air course, and the distance between the units is
less than 100 feet, they may be monitored with one sensor downwind of
the last component. If the distance between the units exceeds 100 feet,
additional sensors are required downwind of each belt drive unit, each
tailpiece, transfer point, and each belt take-up; and
(v) At other locations in any entry that is part of the belt air
course as required and specified in the mine ventilation plan.
(2) Smoke sensors must be installed to monitor the belt entry under
Sec. 75.350(b) at the following locations:
(i) At or near the working section belt tailpiece in the air stream
ventilating the belt entry. In longwall mining systems the sensor must
be located upwind in the belt entry at a distance no greater than 150
feet from the mixing point where intake air is mixed with the belt air
at or near the tailpiece;
(ii) Not more than 100 feet downwind of each belt drive unit, each
tailpiece transfer point, and each belt take-up. If the belt drive,
tailpiece, and/or take-up for a single transfer point are installed
together in the same air course, and the distance between the units is
less than 100 feet, they may be monitored with one sensor downwind of
the last component. If the distance between the units exceeds 100 feet,
additional sensors are required downwind of each belt drive unit, each
tailpiece, transfer point, and each belt take-up; and
(iii) At intervals not to exceed 3,000 feet along each belt entry.
(iv) This provision shall be effective one year after the Secretary
has determined that a smoke sensor is available to reliably detect fire
in underground coal mines.
* * * * *
(q) Training.
(1) All AMS operators must be trained annually in the proper
operation of the AMS. This training must include the following
subjects:
(i) Familiarity with underground mining systems;
(ii) Basic atmospheric monitoring system requirements;
(iii) The mine emergency evacuation and firefighting program of
instruction;
(iv) The mine ventilation system including planned air directions;
(v) Appropriate response to alert, alarm and malfunction signals;
(vi) Use of mine communication systems including emergency
notification procedures; and
(vii) AMS recordkeeping requirements.
(2) At least once every six months, all AMS operators must travel
to all working sections.
(3) A record of the content of training, the person conducting the
training, and the date the training was conducted, must be maintained
at the mine for at least one year by the mine operator.
* * * * *
0
20. Section 75.352 is amended by revising paragraph (f) and by adding
paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 75.352 Actions in response to AMS malfunction, alert, or alarm
signals.
* * * * *
(f) If the minimum air velocity is not maintained when required
under Sec. 75.350(b)(7), immediate action must be taken to return the
ventilation system to proper operation. While the ventilation system is
being corrected, operation of the belt may continue only while a
trained person(s) patrols and continuously monitors for carbon monoxide
or smoke as set forth in Sec. Sec. 75.352(e)(3) through (7), so that
the affected areas will be traveled each hour in their entirety.
(g) The AMS shall automatically provide both a visual and audible
signal in the belt entry at the point-feed regulator location, at
affected sections, and at the designated surface location when carbon
monoxide concentrations reach:
(1) The alert level at both point-feed intake monitoring sensors;
or
(2) The alarm level at either point-feed intake monitoring sensor.
0
21. Section 75.371 is amended by revising paragraphs (jj), (mm), (nn),
and by adding paragraph (yy) to read as follows:
Sec. 75.371 Mine ventilation plan; contents.
* * * * *
(jj) The locations and approved velocities at those locations where
air velocities in the belt entry are above or below the limits set
forth in Sec. 75.350(a)(2) or Sec. Sec. 75.350(b)(7) and
75.350(b)(8).
* * * * *
(mm) The location of any diesel-discriminating sensor, and
additional carbon monoxide or smoke sensors installed in the belt air
course.
(nn) The length of the time delay or any other method used to
reduce the number of non-fire related alert and alarm signals from
carbon monoxide sensors.
* * * * *
(yy) The locations where the pressure differential cannot be
maintained from the primary escapeway to the belt entry.
0
22. Section 75.380 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(7)(v) and (vi)
and (f)(1) and adding paragraph (d)(7)(vii) to read as follows:
Sec. 75.380 Escapeways; bituminous and lignite mines.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(7) * * *
(v) Equipped with one directional indicator cone securely attached
to the lifeline, signifying the route of escape, placed at intervals
not exceeding 100 feet. Cones shall be installed so that the tapered
section points inby;
(vi) Equipped with one sphere securely attached to the lifeline at
each intersection where personnel doors are installed in adjacent
crosscuts;
(vii) Equipped with two securely attached cones, installed
consecutively with the tapered section pointing inby, to signify an
attached branch line is immediately ahead.
(A) A branch line leading from the lifeline to an SCSR cache will
be marked with four cones with the base sections in contact to form two
diamond shapes. The cones must be placed within reach of the lifeline.
(B) A branch line leading from the lifeline to a refuge alternative
will be marked with a rigid spiraled coil at least eight inches in
length. The spiraled coil must be placed within reach of the lifeline
(see Illustration 1 below).
[[Page 80614]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31DE08.001
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) One escapeway that is ventilated with intake air shall be
designated as the primary escapeway. The primary escapeway shall have a
higher ventilation pressure than the belt entry unless the mine
operator submits an alternative in the mine ventilation plan to protect
the integrity of the primary escapeway, based on mine specific
conditions, which is approved by the district manager.
* * * * *
0
23. Section 75.381 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(5)(v) and (vi)
and (e), and adding paragraph (c)(5)(vii) to read as follows:
Sec. 75.381 Escapeways; anthracite mines.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
* * * * *
(5) * * *
* * * * *
(v) Equipped with one directional indicator cone securely attached
to the lifeline, signifying the route of escape, placed at intervals
not exceeding 100 feet. Cones shall be installed so that the tapered
section points inby;
(vi) Equipped with one sphere securely attached to the lifeline at
each intersection where personnel doors are installed in adjacent
crosscuts;
(vii) Equipped with two securely attached cones, installed
consecutively with the tapered section pointing inby, to signify an
attached branch line is immediately ahead.
(A) A branch line leading from the lifeline to an SCSR cache will
be marked with four cones with the base sections in contact to form two
diamond shapes. The cones must be placed within reach of the lifeline.
(B) A branch line leading from the lifeline to a refuge alternative
will be marked with a rigid spiraled coil at least eight inches in
length. The spiraled coil must be placed within reach of the lifeline.
* * * * *
(e) Primary escapeway. One escapeway that shall be ventilated with
intake air shall be designated as the primary escapeway. The primary
escapeway shall have a higher ventilation pressure than the belt entry
unless the mine operator submits an alternative in the mine ventilation
plan to protect the integrity of the primary escapeway, based on mine
specific conditions, which is approved by the district manager.
* * * * *
Subpart L--Fire Protection
0
24. Section 75.1103-4 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to
read as follows:
Sec. 75.1103-4 Automatic fire sensor and warning device systems;
installation; minimum requirements.
(a) Effective December 31, 2009, automatic fire sensor and warning
device systems that use carbon monoxide sensors shall provide
identification of fire along all belt conveyors.
(1) Carbon monoxide sensors shall be installed at the following
locations:
(i) Not more than 100 feet downwind of each belt drive unit, each
tailpiece transfer point, and each belt take-up. If the belt drive,
tailpiece, and/or take-up for a single transfer point are installed
together in the same air course, and the distance between the units is
less than 100 feet, they may be monitored with one sensor downwind of
the last component. If the distance between the units exceeds 100 feet,
additional sensors are required downwind of each belt drive unit, each
tailpiece transfer point, and each belt take-up;
(ii) Not more than 100 feet downwind of each section loading point;
(iii) Along the belt entry so that the spacing between sensors does
not
[[Page 80615]]
exceed 1,000 feet. Where air velocities are less than 50 feet per
minute, spacing must not exceed 350 feet; and
(iv) The mine operator shall indicate the locations of all carbon
monoxide sensors on the mine maps required by Sec. Sec. 75.1200 and
75.1505 of this part.
(2) Where used, sensors responding to radiation, smoke, gases, or
other indications of fire, shall be spaced at regular intervals to
provide protection equivalent to carbon monoxide sensors, and installed
within the time specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
(3) When the distance from the tailpiece at loading points to the
first outby sensor reaches the spacing requirements in Sec. 75.1103-
4(a)(1)(iii), an additional sensor shall be installed and put in
operation within 24 production shift hours. When sensors of the kind
described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section are used, they shall be
installed and put in operation within 24 production shift hours after
the equivalent distance which has been established for the sensor from
the tailpiece at loading points to the first outby sensor is first
reached.
(b) Automatic fire sensor and warning device systems shall be
installed so as to minimize the possibility of damage from roof falls
and the moving belt and its load. Sensors must be installed near the
center in the upper third of the entry, in a manner that does not
expose personnel working on the system to unsafe conditions. Sensors
must not be located in abnormally high areas or in other locations
where air flow patterns do not permit products of combustion to be
carried to the sensors.
* * * * *
0
25. The section heading and paragraph (a) of Sec. 75.1103-5 are
revised and paragraphs (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h) are added to read as
follows:
Sec. 75.1103-5 Automatic fire warning devices; actions and response.
(a) When the carbon monoxide level reaches 10 parts per million
above the established ambient level at any sensor location, automatic
fire sensor and warning device systems shall provide an effective
warning signal at the following locations:
(1) At working sections and other work locations where miners may
be endangered from a fire in the belt entry.
(2) At a manned surface location where personnel have an assigned
post of duty. The manned surface location must have:
(i) A telephone or equivalent communication with all miners who may
be endangered and
(ii) A map or schematic that shows the locations of sensors, and
the intended air flow direction at these locations. This map or
schematic must be updated within 24 hours of any change in this
information.
(3) The automatic fire sensor and warning device system shall be
monitored for a period of 4 hours after the belt is stopped, unless an
examination for hot rollers and fire is made as prescribed in Sec.
75.1103-4(e).
* * * * *
(d) When a malfunction or warning signal is received at the manned
surface location, the sensors that are activated must be identified and
appropriate personnel immediately notified.
(e) Upon notification of a malfunction or warning signal,
appropriate personnel must immediately initiate an investigation to
determine the cause of the malfunction or warning signal and take the
required actions set forth in paragraph (f) of this section.
(f) If any sensor indicates a warning, the following actions must
be taken unless the mine operator determines that the signal does not
present a hazard to miners:
(1) Appropriate personnel must notify miners in affected working
sections, in affected areas where mechanized mining equipment is being
installed or removed, and at other locations specified in the approved
mine emergency evacuation and firefighting program of instruction; and
(2) All miners in the affected areas, unless assigned emergency
response duties, must be immediately withdrawn to a safe location
identified in the mine emergency evacuation and firefighting program of
instruction.
(g) If the warning signal will be activated during calibration of
sensors, personnel manning the surface location must be notified prior
to and upon completion of calibration. Affected working sections, areas
where mechanized mining equipment is being installed or removed, or
other areas designated in the approved emergency evacuation and
firefighting program of instruction must be notified at the beginning
and completion of calibration.
(h) If any fire detection component becomes inoperative, immediate
action must be taken to repair the component. While repairs are being
made, operation of the belt may continue if the following requirements
are met:
(1) If one sensor becomes inoperative, a trained person must
continuously monitor for carbon monoxide at the inoperative sensor;
(2) If two or more adjacent sensors become inoperative, trained
persons must patrol and continuously monitor the affected areas for
carbon monoxide so that they will be traveled each hour in their
entirety. Alternatively, a trained person must be stationed at each
inoperative sensor to monitor for carbon monoxide;
(3) If the complete fire detection system becomes inoperative,
trained persons must patrol and continuously monitor the affected areas
for carbon monoxide so that they will be traveled each hour in their
entirety;
(4) Trained persons who conduct monitoring under this section must
have two-way voice communication capability, at intervals not to exceed
2,000 feet, and must report carbon monoxide concentrations to the
surface at intervals not to exceed one hour;
(5) Trained persons who conduct monitoring under this section must
immediately report to the surface any concentration of carbon monoxide
that reaches 10 parts per million above the established ambient level,
unless the mine operator knows that the source of the carbon monoxide
does not present a hazard to miners; and
(6) Handheld detectors used to monitor the belt entry under this
section must have a detection level equivalent to that of the system's
carbon monoxide sensors.
0
26. Section 75.1103-6 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 75.1103-6 Automatic fire sensors; actuation of fire suppression
systems.
Point-type heat sensors or automatic fire sensor and warning device
systems may be used to actuate deluge-type water systems, foam
generator systems, multipurpose dry-powder systems, or other equivalent
automatic fire suppression systems.
0
27. Section 75.1103-8 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 75.1103-8 Automatic fire sensor and warning device systems;
examination and test requirements.
(a) Automatic fire sensor and warning device systems shall be
examined at least once each shift when belts are operated as part of a
production shift. A functional test of the warning signals shall be
made at least once every seven days. Examination and maintenance of
such systems shall be by a qualified person.
(b) A record of the functional test conducted in accordance with
paragraph (a) of this section shall be maintained by the operator and
kept for a period of one year.
(c) Sensors shall be calibrated in accordance with the
manufacturer's calibration instructions at intervals not to exceed 31
days. A record of the
[[Page 80616]]
sensor calibrations shall be maintained by the operator and kept for a
period of one year.
0
28. Section 75.1103-10 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 75.1103-10 Fire suppression systems; additional requirements.
For each conveyor belt flight exceeding 2,000 feet in length, where
the average air velocity along the belt haulage entry exceeds 100 feet
per minute, an additional cache of the materials specified in Sec.
75.1103-9(a)(1), (2), and (3) shall be provided. The additional cache
may be stored at the locations specified in Sec. 75.1103-9(a), or at
some other strategic location readily accessible to the conveyor belt
flight.
0
29. Section 75.1108 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 75.1108 Approved conveyor belts.
(a) Until December 31, 2009 conveyor belts placed in service in
underground coal mines shall be:
(1) Approved under Part 14; or
(2) Accepted under Part 18.
(b) Effective December 31, 2009 conveyor belts placed in service in
underground coal mines shall be approved under Part 14. If MSHA
determines that Part 14 approved belt is not available, the Agency will
consider an extension of the effective date.
(c) Effective December 31, 2018 all conveyor belts used in
underground coal mines shall be approved under Part 14.
0
30. Remove Sec. 75.1108-1.
Subpart R--Miscellaneous
0
31. Section 75.1731 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 75.1731 Maintenance of belt conveyors and belt conveyor entries.
(a) Damaged rollers, or other damaged belt conveyor components,
which pose a fire hazard must be immediately repaired or replaced. All
other damaged rollers, or other damaged belt conveyor components, must
be repaired or replaced.
(b) Conveyor belts must be properly aligned to prevent the moving
belt from rubbing against the structure or components.
(c) Materials shall not be allowed in the belt conveyor entry where
the material may contribute to a frictional heating hazard.
(d) Splicing of any approved conveyor belt must maintain flame-
resistant properties of the belt.
[FR Doc. E8-30639 Filed 12-30-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-43-P
| |
|
|