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, 35026-35057 [E8-13631]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
• Mine Safety and Health Administration

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



[[Page 35025]]

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

Part III





Department of Labor





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



Mine Safety and Health Administration



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



30 CFR Parts 6, 14, 18 et al.



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

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

[[Page 35026]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mine Safety and Health Administration

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

RIN 1219-AB59


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

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

ACTION: Proposed Rule, notice of public hearings.

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: Comments must be clearly identified with ``RIN 1219-AB59'' 
and may be sent to MSHA by any of the following methods:
    (1) Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments.
    (2) Electronic mail: zzMSHA-Comments@dol.gov. Include ``RIN 1219-
AB59'' in the subject line of the message.
    (3) Facsimile: (202) 693-9441. Include ``RIN 1219-AB59'' in the 
subject.
    (4) Regular Mail: MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and 
Variances, 1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia 22209-
3939.
    (5) Hand Delivery or Courier: MSHA, Office of Standards, 
Regulations, and Variances, 1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2350, Arlington, 
Virginia 22209-3939. Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the 21st 
floor.
    Comments can be accessed electronically at https://www.msha.gov 
under the ``Rules and Regs'' link. MSHA will post all comments on the 
Internet without change, including any personal information provided. 
Comments may also be reviewed at the Office of Standards, Regulations, 
and Variances, 1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia. Sign 
in at the receptionist's desk on the 21st floor.
    MSHA maintains a listserve that enables subscribers to receive e-
mail notification when rulemaking documents are published in the 
Federal Register. To subscribe to the listserve, go to https://
www.msha.gov/subscriptions/subscribe.aspx.
    Information Collection Requirements: Comments concerning the 
information collection requirements must be clearly identified by ``RIN 
1219-AB59'' as comments on the information collection requirements and 
sent to both the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and MSHA. 
Comments to OMB may be sent by mail addressed to the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20503, Attn: Desk Officer for MSHA. Comments to MSHA may be transmitted 
either electronically to zzMSHA-Comments@dol.gov, by facsimile to (202) 
693-9441, or by regular mail, hand delivery, or courier to MSHA, Office 
of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2350, 
Arlington, Virginia 22209-3939.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia W. Silvey, Director, Office 
of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, 1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 
2350, Arlington, Virginia 22209-3939, silvey.patricia@dol.gov (e-mail), 
(202) 693-9440 (voice), or (202) 693-9441 (telefax).

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

I. Public Hearings
II. Introduction
III. Section-by-Section Analysis
    A. Flame-Resistant Conveyor Belt
    1. General
    2. Discussion of Proposed Rule
    B. Fire Prevention and Detection and Approval of the Use of Air 
from the Belt Entry to Ventilate Working Sections
    1. General
    2. Discussion of Proposed Rule
IV. Executive Order 12866
    A. Population-at-Risk
    B. Benefits
    C. Compliance Costs
V. Feasibility
    A. Technological Feasibility
    B. Economic Feasibility
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)
    A. Definition of a Small Mine
    B. Factual Basis for Certification
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    A. Summary
    B. Procedural Details
VIII. Other Regulatory Considerations
    A. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    B. Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999: 
Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families
    C. Executive Order 12630: Government Actions and Interference 
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights
    D. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
    E. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations that 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. Executive Order 13272: Proper Consideration of Small Entities 
in Agency Rulemaking
IX. Proposed Rule

I. Public Hearings

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

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

[[Page 35027]]

 
August 26, 2008.........................  Embassy Suites Charleston, 300    (304) 347-8700
                                           Court St., Charleston, WV 25301.
August 28, 2008.........................  Sheraton Birmingham, 2101         (205) 324-5000
                                           Richard Arrington Jr. Blvd.,
                                           Birmingham, AL 35203.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The hearings will begin with an opening statement from MSHA, 
followed by an opportunity for members of the public to make oral 
presentations. Requests to speak at a hearing should be made at least 5 
days prior to the hearing date. Requests to speak may be made by 
telephone (202-693-9440), facsimile (202-693-9441), or mail (MSHA, 
Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, 
Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia 22209-3939).
    Any unallocated time at the end of each hearing will be made 
available to persons making same-day requests to speak. Speakers will 
speak in the order that they sign in at the hearing. At the discretion 
of the presiding official, the time allocated to each speaker for their 
presentation may be limited. Speakers and other attendees may also 
present information to the MSHA panel for inclusion in the rulemaking 
record.
    The hearings will be conducted in an informal manner. The hearing 
panel may ask questions of speakers. Formal rules of evidence or cross 
examination will not apply. The presiding official may exercise 
discretion to assure the orderly progress of the hearing and meeting 
and may exclude irrelevant or unduly repetitious material and 
questions. A verbatim transcript of the proceedings will be made a part 
of the rulemaking record. Copies of the transcript will be available to 
the public. The transcript will also be available on MSHA's Home Page 
at https://www.msha.gov, under Statutory and Regulatory Information.
    MSHA will accept post-hearing written comments and other 
appropriate data for the record from any interested party, including 
those not presenting oral statements. Written comments will be included 
in the rulemaking record until the close of the comment period. MSHA 
will make transcripts of the hearings, post them on MSHA's Web site 
https://www.msha.gov, and include them in the rulemaking record.

II. Introduction

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

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

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

[[Page 35028]]

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

III. Section-By-Section Analysis

A. Flame-Resistant Conveyor Belt

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

[[Page 35029]]

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

Subpart A--General

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

[[Page 35030]]

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

[[Page 35031]]

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

[[Page 35032]]

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

Subpart B--Technical Requirements

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

[[Page 35033]]

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

[[Page 35034]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subpart L--Fire Protection

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

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

1. General
    This proposed rule will enhance miner safety and health by 
including improved requirements for the use of air from the belt entry, 
belt maintenance, and fire detection.
    The proposal includes: New procedures to approve the use of air 
f