Flame-Resistant Conveyor Belt, Fire Prevention and Detection, and Use of Air From the Belt Entry, 80580-80616 [E8-30639]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
• Mine Safety and Health Administration

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



[[Page 80579]]

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

Part III





Department of Labor





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



Mine Safety and Health Administration



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



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

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

[[Page 80580]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mine Safety and Health Administration

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

RIN 1219-AB59


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

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule addresses the recommendations of the Technical 
Study Panel (Panel) on the Utilization of Belt Air and the Composition 
and Fire Retardant Properties of Belt Materials in Underground Coal 
Mining. The Panel was established under Section 11 of the Mine 
Improvement and New Emergency Response (MINER) Act of 2006. The final 
rule is consistent with the Panel's recommendations and includes 
requirements for: Flame-resistant conveyor belts; training Atmospheric 
Monitoring System operators; levels of respirable dust in belt entries; 
airlocks along escapeways; minimum and maximum air velocities; approval 
for the use of air from the belt entry to ventilate working sections; 
monitoring point-feed regulators; smoke sensors; standardized tactile 
signals on lifelines; replacing point-type heat sensors with carbon 
monoxide sensors; and belt conveyor and belt entry maintenance.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia W. Silvey at 
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: 
https://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 https://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