[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 96 (Thursday, May 19, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-12054]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: May 19, 1994]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Department of Labor
_______________________________________________________________________
Mine Safety and Health Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
30 CFR Part 75
Underground Coal Mine Ventilation; Safety Standards; Proposed Rule
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration
30 CFR Part 75
RIN 1219-AA11
Safety Standards for Underground Coal Mine Ventilation
AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration, (MSHA) Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule revises stayed provisions of the Mine
Safety and Health Administration's existing safety standards for
ventilation of underground coal mines. The proposal also revises,
clarifies or reproposes certain other provisions in the rule, includes
some new provisions, and addresses concerns raised during public
informational meetings and later discussions.
DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before July 18, 1994.
Commenters are encouraged to send comments on a computer disk along
with their original comments in hard copy.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments and computer disks to the Mine Safety
and Health Administration, Office of Standards, Regulations and
Variances, room 631, Ballston Tower No. 3, 4015 Wilson Boulevard,
Arlington, Virginia 22203.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia W. Silvey, Director, Office
of Standards, Regulations and Variances, MSHA, phone (703) 235-1910.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposal contains information collection requirements in
Secs. 75.312, 75.342, 75.360, 75.363, 75.364 and 75.382. These
paperwork requirements have been submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3504(h) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980. The respondents would be mine operators. The
burden hour estimate for Sec. 75.312 includes the time to record any
fan monitoring system malfunctions, electrical or mechanical
deficiencies in the monitoring system and any sudden increase or loss
in mine ventilating pressure, the time for recording main mine fan
defects that are corrected and for the mine foreman and mine
superintendent to countersign the record. The burden hour estimate for
Sec. 75.342 includes the time to develop a written maintenance program,
to record the calibration tests and to file the record. The burden hour
estimate for Sec. 75.360 includes the expanded examination time and the
time for the mine superintendent to countersign the records. The burden
hour estimates for Sec. 75.362 includes the expanded examination time.
The burden hour estimate for Sec. 75.363 includes the time for
recording the hazard, the corrective action taken, the certified person
initialing the record, the mine foreman and mine superintendent
countersigning the record and for filing the record. The burden hour
estimate for Sec. 75.364 includes the time for the mine superintendent
to countersign the records. The burden hour estimate for Sec. 75.382
includes the time for recording the results of the examination, for the
mine foreman and the mine superintendent to countersign the record, and
for filing the record. The information collected would be used by MSHA
to assess compliance with the proposed requirements. The information
collection requirements contained in the proposal are discussed below.
Proposed Sec. 75.312(g)(1) would require that the records of all
defects found during the daily fan examination be made by the end of
the shift on which the examination is made. The record would be made in
a state-approved book or in a bound book with sequential machine-
numbered pages.
Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(i) would require that the certified
copies of data produced by the fan monitoring systems be maintained
separate from other computer generated reports or data.
Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(ii) would require that a record be made
of any fan monitoring system malfunction, electrical or mechanical
deficiency in the monitoring system and any sudden increase or loss in
mine ventilating pressure. The record would be made by the end of the
shift on which the review of the data is completed and would be made in
a state-approved book or in a bound book with sequential machine-
numbered pages.
Proposed paragraph (g)(3) would require that at mines permitted to
shut down main mine fans under Sec. 75.311, if a pressure recording
device is not used, a record be made of the time and fan pressure
immediately before the fan is stopped, and after the fan is restarted
and the fan pressure stabilizes. The record would be made in a state-
approved book or in a bound book with sequential machine-numbered
pages.
Proposed paragraph (g)(4) would require that a record of the
results of the tests be made by the end of the shift on which the
monthly test of the automatic fan signal device or the automatic
closing doors is completed. Persons making these tests would record the
results of the tests in a state-approved book or in a bound book with
sequential machine-numbered pages.
Proposed paragraph (g)(5) would require that the records required
under paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) be countersigned by the mine
foreman, and the mine superintendent, mine manager, or other mine
official to whom the mine foreman is directly accountable.
MSHA estimates that it would take about 4 minutes for the mine
foreman and mine superintendent to countersign the records and would
take an additional 5 minutes to record main mine fan defects corrected
and an additional 10 minutes to record any fan monitoring system
malfunctions, electrical or mechanical deficiencies in the monitoring
system and any sudden increase or loss in mine ventilating pressure.
The total estimated recordkeeping burden for all affected mines would
be 29,608 hours of which large mines would incur 9,657 hours and small
mines would incur 19,951 hours.
Proposed paragraph Sec. 75.342(a)(4)(ii) would require mine
operators to develop and adopt a written maintenance program that would
have to be made available for inspection by authorized representatives
of the Secretary and the representative of miners. MSHA estimates that
it would take about 1 hour to develop a written maintenance program.
Proposed paragraph (a)(4)(iii) would require that a record of all
calibration tests of methane monitors be made in a state-approved book
or in a bound book with sequential machine-numbered pages.
Proposed paragraph (a)(4)(iv) would require the record of the
calibration tests to be kept for one year from the date of the test and
to be retained at a surface location at the mine and made available for
inspection by authorized representatives of the Secretary and the
representative of miners.
A record of calibration tests would be required to be made monthly
at all mines. MSHA estimates that it would take about 5 minutes to
complete a record. The total estimated recordkeeping burden for all
affected mines that concerns developing a written maintenance program
and maintaining a record of tests would be 2,910 hours of which large
mines would incur 1,464 hours and small mines would incur 1,446 hours.
Proposed Sec. 75.360(b)(3) would require a preshift examination to
be made for sections capable of producing coal by energizing equipment
on the section. MSHA estimates that this would affect some mines and
take up to an additional hour per examination.
Proposed paragraph (f) would require that a record of the results
of each preshift examination, including a record of hazardous
conditions and their locations found by the examiner during each
examination and of the results and locations of air and methane
measurements, be made in a book provided for that purpose on the
surface.
The record would be made by either the certified person who made
the examination or by a person designated by the operator. If the
record is made by someone other than the examiner, the examiner would
be required to verify the record by initials and date. A record would
also be made by a certified person of the action taken to correct
hazardous conditions found during the preshift examination. The records
would be countersigned by the mine foreman, and by the mine
superintendent, mine manager, or other mine official to whom the mine
foreman is directly accountable. The record would be made in a state-
approved book or in a bound book with sequential machine-numbered
pages. MSHA estimates that it would take about 2 minutes for the mine
superintendent to countersign the records.
The total estimated recordkeeping burden and the extended
examination time for all affected mines would be 60,987 hours of which
large mines would incur 56,015 hours and small mines would incur 4,972
hours.
Proposed Sec. 75.362(a)(1) would expand the on-shift examination to
include sections where anyone is assigned to work during the shift,
such as those sections where maintenance work is performed. In
addition, proposed paragraph (a)(2) would add a new requirement for on-
shift examinations to be conducted to assure compliance with the
respirable dust control parameters specified in mine ventilation plans.
MSHA estimates that these provisions will expand on-shift examinations
by up to 45 minutes. MSHA estimates that the total burden hours related
to expanding the on-shift examination would be 111,434, of which small
mines would incur 18,007 hours and large mines would incur 93,427
hours.
Proposed Sec. 75.363 would require that any hazardous conditions
discovered be posted, corrected immediately, and recorded. Proposed
paragraph (a) would require a conspicuous danger sign to be posted at
any area where hazardous conditions are found. The hazardous condition
would have to be corrected immediately and only persons designated by
the operator to correct or evaluate the condition would be allowed to
enter a posted area.
Proposed paragraph (b) would require that a record including a
description and location of the hazardous condition and the corrective
action taken be kept in a book maintained on the surface at the mine.
The record would be made by the completion of the shift on which the
hazardous condition is found. This record would not be required for
shifts when no hazardous conditions are found or for hazardous
conditions found during the preshift or weekly examinations because
these examinations have separate recordkeeping requirements.
Proposed paragraph (c) would require that the record be made by
either the certified person or by a person designated by the operator.
If the record is made by a person designated by the operator, the
certified person would be required to verify the record by initials and
date by or at the end of the shift for which the examination was made.
The record would be countersigned by the mine foreman and by the mine
superintendent, mine manager, or other mine official to whom the mine
foreman is directly accountable. The record would be made in a state-
approved book or in a bound book with sequential machine-numbered
pages.
Proposed paragraph (d) would require that the record be retained at
a surface location at the mine for at least one year and be made
available for inspection by authorized representatives of the Secretary
and the representative of miners.
Under the existing rule, the recordkeeping requirement for on-shift
examinations was included in paragraph (g) of Sec. 75.362 and the
requirement for retention was in paragraph (h). Under the proposal,
paragraphs (g) and (h) are removed from Sec. 75.362 and transferred to
paragraphs (c) and (d) of Sec. 75.363. As the requirement would remain
the same, there would be no change in the paperwork burden associated
with the recordkeeping for on-shift examinations. However, this
recordkeeping requirement would be new for hazardous conditions found
during supplemental examinations and at times when an on-shift
examination would not be required. This recordkeeping requirement would
also be new for hazardous conditions found during the examination
following a main mine fan stoppage of 15 minutes or longer (75.313).
MSHA estimates that a record of hazardous conditions found during
supplemental examinations would be made about 24 times a year at each
large mine and about 4 times a year at each small mine. MSHA further
estimates that it would take about 5 minutes to complete a record and
an additional 7 minutes for the certified person to initial and the
mine foreman and mine superintendent to countersign the record. The
total estimated recordkeeping burden for all affected mines would be
4,092 hours, of which large mines would incur 3,514 hours and small
mines would incur 578 hours.
In addition, MSHA estimates that a record of hazardous conditions
found during an examination following a main mine fan stoppage of 15
minutes or longer would be made about 100 times a year at large mines
and 100 times a year at small mines. MSHA further estimates that it
would take about 5 minutes to complete a record and an additional 4
minutes for the mine foreman and mine superintendent to countersign the
record. The total estimated recordkeeping burden for all affected mines
would be 28 hours, of which large mines would incur 14 hours and small
mines would incur 14 hours.
Proposed Sec. 75.364(b) would require an examination for hazardous
conditions and for noncompliance with mandatory safety or health
standards that could result in a hazardous condition to be made weekly
by a certified person.
Proposed paragraph (h) would require that at the completion of any
shift during which a portion of a weekly examination is conducted a
record be made of the results of each weekly examination, including a
record of hazardous conditions, their locations found by the examiner
during each examination, the corrective action taken, and the results
and location of air and methane measurements. The record would be made
by the person making the examination or a person designated by the
operator. If made by a person other than the examiner, the examiner
would be required to verify the record by initials and date. The record
would be countersigned by the mine foreman and by the mine
superintendent, mine manager, or other mine official to whom the mine
foreman is directly accountable. The record would be made in a state-
approved book or in a bound book with sequential machine-numbered
pages.
MSHA estimates that it would take about 2 minutes for the mine
superintendent to countersign the record and an additional 3 minutes to
record noncompliance with mandatory safety or health standards that
could result in a hazardous condition. The total estimated
recordkeeping burden for all affected mines would be 5,457 hours, of
which large mines would incur 3,048 hours and small mines would incur
2,409 hours.
Existing Sec. 75.382(c) requires mechanical escape facilities,
including automatic elevators, to be examined weekly.
Proposed paragraph (h) would require that a record of the results
of the examination of mechanical escape facilities, including any
deficiency found and the corrective action taken, be made at the
completion of any shift during which the weekly examination is made.
The record would be made by the person making the examination. The
record would be countersigned by the mine foreman and by the mine
superintendent, mine manager, or other mine official to whom the mine
foreman is directly accountable. The record would be made in a state-
approved book or in a bound book with sequential machine-numbered
pages.
Proposed paragraph (i) would require that the records be retained
for at least one year at a surface location at the mine and made
available for inspection by authorized representatives of the Secretary
and representative of miners.
A record of examinations would be required to be made weekly at all
mines that would be governed by Sec. 75.382. MSHA estimates that it
would take about 5 minutes to complete a record and an additional 4
minutes for the mine foreman and mine superintendent to countersign the
record. The total estimated recordkeeping burden for all affected mines
would be 3,360 hours, of which large mines would incur 3,300 hours and
small mines would incur 60 hours.
Send comments regarding these burden estimates or any other aspect
of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing
these burdens, to Patricia W. Silvey, Director, Office of Standards,
Regulations and Variances, MSHA, room 631, Ballston Tower #3, 4015
Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203, and directly to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
Attention: Steve Semenuk, Desk Officer for MSHA, room 3001, New
Executive Office Building, Washington DC 20503.
New Technology for Recordkeeping
As the complexity of mining increases with the introduction of
technological improvements and innovations, MSHA foresees that
electronic storage of records in computer systems could enhance health
and safety by facilitating rapid access to critical information by
individuals with the authority and responsibility to direct or redirect
resources to correct potentially unsafe or unhealthy conditions.
Records electronically stored also could facilitate trend analysis,
allowing for earlier detection and correction of potential hazards. In
addition, the efficiency of accessing various records at a desktop
computer workstation could promote a more integrated and effective
approach to mine safety and health.
MSHA is considering allowing electronic storage of the records and
certifications required by this proposed rule. Although the Agency
envisions that such storage would most likely be on a personal computer
at the mine site, central storage of the records would not be precluded
as long as immediate access to those records at the mine site were
available. The use of electronic media for storage of such records
would have to be accessible, secure, verifiable, and provide for
necessary backups. MSHA would require both the availability of
immediate screen viewing of the information and the availability of a
hard copy printout within 1 hour of a request by MSHA or an authorized
representative of miners. The records would have to be kept in a secure
manner that would preclude alteration once the required information is
correctly entered. MSHA would have to be able to verify that the
electronic signature of the persons required to sign or countersign
such records is authentic and entered in a timely manner. Finally, the
records would have to be periodically backed-up on media separate from
the computer so that computer failure would not result in the loss of
data. Although MSHA has not specifically included any such provisions
in this proposal, the Agency requests comments on the storage of
records on electronic media, in particular on the safeguards necessary
to ensure the integrity of such storage.
II. Background
The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is proposing to
revise the definition of return air in Sec. 75.301, and would revise
Secs. 75.310(a)(3), (a)(4) and (c), 75.311(d), 75.312(a), (b)(1), (c),
(d), (g)(1), (g)(3), (g)(4) and (h), 75.313(c)(2), (c)(3), (d)(1)(i),
(d)(1)(ii) and (d)(2), 75.321(a), 75.323(b)(1)(ii), (c)(1), and
(d)(2)(i), 75,333(a), (b)(1), (b)(3), (b)(4) and (e)(1), 75.334(e),
75.340(a), 75.342(a)(4), 75.344(a)(1), 75.360(a), introductory text to
(b), (b)(1), (b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(6), introductory text to (c), (c)(1),
introductory text to (c)(3) and (f), 75.362(a)(1), (c)(1), (d)(1)(iii),
and (d)(2), 75.364(a), (b) and (h), 75.370(a)(3), (c)(1), and (f),
75.371(b), (s), (z) and (bb), 75.372(b)(3), 75.380(d)(3), (d)(4)(ii),
(d)(5), (f) and (i)(2) of its existing safety standards for ventilation
of underground coal mines. MSHA is also proposing to redesignate
Sec. 75.312(f) as (f)(1), and paragraphs (g)(2) and (g)(3) as (g)(3)
and (g)(4). Section 75.344(b)(2) would be redesignated as
Sec. 75.344(b)(3). Existing Sec. 75.360(e) would be removed and (f)
through (h) would be redesignated as (e) through (g). Existing
Sec. 75.362(a)(2), (g) and (h) would be removed and (d)(1)(i) and
(d)(1)(ii) would be redesignated as (d)(1)(ii) and (d)(1)(iii).
Existing Sec. 75.370(b)(1) through (f) would be redesignated as (c)(1)
through (g). MSHA is further proposing to add new Secs. 75.312(f)(2),
(g)(2), and (g)(5), 75.320(e), 75.330(c), 75.333(h), 75.344(b)(2) and
(e), 75.360(b)(8) through (b)(10), 75.362(a)(2), (d)(1)(i) and (g),
75.363, 75.370(b), 75.372(b)(19) and (b)(20), 75.380(d)(4)(iii),
75.380(f)(2) and (f)(6) and 75.382(g), (h) and (i). New introductory
text would be added to Sec. 75.388(c), and new introductory text would
be added to Sec. 75.389(c). These revisions are proposed in accordance
with section 101 of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30
U.S.C. 811.
On May 15, 1992, MSHA published a notice in the Federal Register
revising its safety standards for ventilation of underground coal mines
(57 FR 20868). To assure that mine operators could effectively plan and
implement necessary changes, MSHA delayed the effective date of the
final rule from August 16, 1992, to November 16, 1992 (57 FR 34683).
Through discussions with the mining community, the Agency became
aware of potential problems that could arise through the implementation
of Secs. 75.344(a)(1) and 75.313. MSHA therefore initially stayed these
two provisions until July 1, 1993, (57 FR 53856) extended the stay
until July 1, 1994 (58 FR 31908), and has extended the stay until the
completion of this rulemaking (59 FR 18485). Sections 75.314, 75.315
and 75.345 are in effect during the duration of the stay. As proposed,
Sec. 75.313 would revise paragraphs (c)(2), (c)(3), (d)(1)(i),
(d)(1)(ii) and (d)(2) of stayed Sec. 75.313 and delete interim
Secs. 75.314 and 75.315. Also as proposed, Sec. 75.344(a)(1) would
revise stayed Sec. 75.344(a)(1) and delete interim Sec. 75.345. Section
75.344(a)(1) was stayed to determine whether requiring all compressors
to be located in a noncombustible structure or area could create a fire
hazard due to overheating.
Section 75.313 was stayed to further consider the effect of fan
stoppages in certain mines. As written, the standard would have allowed
circuits and equipment used to withdraw persons from the mine to remain
energized until the persons are withdrawn. The Agency is concerned that
under some conditions methane could migrate into haulageways after a
fan stoppage. This could result in a hazard if all underground
electrical circuits are not promptly deenergized and all mechanized
equipment is not shut off.
On November 16, 1992, the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) issued an order staying the
application of the air quality standards for oxygen and carbon dioxide
at 30 CFR 75.321(a). MSHA is continuing to litigate this application of
the standard. However, in conformance with the Court's order, the
Agency has suspended indefinitely Sec. 75.321(a) and redesignated the
first sentence of previous Sec. 75.301 to remain in effect as
Sec. 75.321(c) (57 FR 55457, November 25, 1992). The result is that,
with the exception of bleeder systems and worked-out areas, the Agency
is continuing to apply the oxygen and carbon dioxide limits to all
areas where persons work or travel as in previous Sec. 75.301. As
proposed, Sec. 75.321(a) would revise suspended Sec. 75.321(a) and
delete interim Sec. 75.321(c).
III. Discussion of the Proposed Rule
A. General Discussion
Underground coal mine ventilation affects various aspects of the
safety and health of miners. Proper underground coal mine ventilation
is necessary to protect against mine fires and explosions due in part
to the presence of explosive gases, oxygen-deficient atmospheres, and
accumulations of other harmful gases and float coal dust. Ventilation
is also a primary method of controlling miners' exposure to respirable
dust and preventing the development of pneumoconiosis (black lung). In
enacting the statutory ventilation standards of the Mine Act, Congress
expressly recognized these and related dangers associated with
inadequate ventilation:
[V]entilation of a mine is important not only to provide fresh
air to miners, and to control dust accumulation, but also to sweep
away liberated methane before it can reach the range where the gas
could become explosive. In terms then of the safety of miners, the
requirement that a mine be adequately ventilated becomes one of the
more important safety standards under the * * * Act.
S. Rep. No. 181, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. 41 (1977), reprinted in Senate
Subcommittee on Labor, Committee on Human Resources, 95th Cong., 2d
Sess., Legislative History of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of
1977, at 629 (1978).
On May 15, 1992, the Agency published a comprehensive revision of
its ventilation standards for underground coal mines. Because of the
scope and extensive coverage of the new standards, the Agency held a
series of informational meetings across the country to brief the mining
public on the provisions of the new rule. As a result of these meetings
and other comments received by the Agency at meetings with industry and
labor groups relative to the ongoing litigation, as well as its own
review of the application of the regulations, MSHA became aware of
several provisions that needed to be further evaluated and analyzed. In
many cases, comments received were verbal. Therefore, any references in
this preamble to ``comments'' or ``commenters'' do not necessarily mean
either written or formal comments. Persons wishing to formalize
comments made during public meetings or other meetings with the Agency
should submit their comments as a part of this rulemaking.
In general, the proposed standards specified below address the
stayed provisions, clarify the Agency's intent, refine the application
of the rule in light of information received, and more fully address
the recognized precautions and procedures necessary to avoid hazards
associated with improper ventilation of underground coal mines. Major
areas addressed include: examinations, including preshift examinations;
recordkeeping and certification; involvement of the representative of
miners in the plan approval process; escapeway dimensions; equipment in
primary escapeways and fire suppression systems. These standards are
intended to fit within the comprehensive structure of the ventilation
rule now in effect.
In addition, a segment of the mining community has asserted that
certain provisions concerning the installation and removal of
mechanized mining equipment were promulgated without the benefit of
adequate comment. The Agency disagrees. The September 1989 explosion at
the William Station Mine in Kentucky demonstrates, however, that proper
ventilation during the installation and removal of mechanized mining
equipment is essential and can greatly enhance the protection provided
to miners in these areas. Therefore, for the purpose of receiving and
giving full consideration to all pertinent comments on this issue, MSHA
is reproposing each provision that addresses the installation and
removal of mechanized mining equipment, and is soliciting comments for
each. The section-by-section portion of the preamble discusses each
provision affected and the proposed rule sets out the reproposed
language.
Since publication of the ventilation rule, the Agency has received
comments stating that Atmospheric Monitoring Systems (AMS) should be
permitted to operate by battery backup during fan stoppages and not be
required to be intrinsically safe. The commenters indicated that the
information thus provided by the AMS would assist the operator in
obtaining information regarding the underground conditions of the mine.
To allow the battery backups would require a revision of
Secs. 75.311(h) and 75.313(e). The Agency solicits comments on the
merits and the effect on safety of allowing battery backups and
conditions, such as low methane levels, that must exist if they are
permitted to be used.
Also, since publication of Sec. 75.383, the Agency has received
comments suggesting that older miners be allowed to individually
decline participation in escapeway drills. The Agency is not proposing
any revision to Sec. 75.383; however, comments are solicited as to the
appropriateness of providing an option which would allow miners to
individually ``opt out'' of escapeway drills, and the circumstances
under which miners would be permitted to ``opt out.''
The Agency solicits comments on the specific provisions addressed
in this proposal. Comments received that also address other provisions
will be considered to the extent that they address the issues relevant
to this proposal.
B. Section-by-Section Discussion
Section 75.301 Definitions
Since the final rule became effective on November 16, 1992, it has
come to the attention of the Agency that the Sec. 75.301 definitions of
intake and return air are being interpreted in a manner not wholly
consistent with the original intent. Under the proposal, the definition
of return air would be modified to more clearly convey the intended
meaning.
Instances have developed where operators desire to take air from an
intake air course to ventilate shops, electrical installations, or for
other purposes, and this air is then coursed directly to the surface
and is not used to ventilate working places. Under one reading of the
existing definition, because this air has not ventilated a working
place or a worked-out area, the air in this air course cannot be
considered return air. Therefore, a violation could exist in that the
air ventilating the shop, compressor, or electrical installation was
coursed into an intake rather than into a return as required. This was
not the intent of the Agency and no safety benefit is associated with
such a result.
Under the proposal, the definition of return air would be modified
to permit operators to designate certain air courses as return air
courses for the purpose of ventilating structures, areas or
installations that are required to be ventilated to return air courses
and for ventilating seals when this air will not be used to ventilate
working places. Thus, an operator wishing to split air off of an intake
for the purpose of ventilating shops, electrical installations, or for
other purposes, could designate the air course into which the split is
directed as a return provided the air in the air course would not used
to ventilate working places or other locations, structures,
installations or areas required to be ventilated with intake air.
The Agency does not intend that operators routinely redesignate air
courses from intake to return. Should questions arise as to the need to
redesignate an intake as a return, MSHA will be available for
consultation. Additionally, in order that all interested parties are
made aware of the redesignation, MSHA is proposing to require in
Sec. 75.372, Mine ventilation map, that air courses that are
redesignated from intake to return for the purposes discussed above be
shown on the mine ventilation map.
Section 75.310 Installation of Main Mine Fans
Main mine fans provide the means by which mechanically produced
pressure is supplied to the mine ventilating current. The Agency is
proposing to revise paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(4) and (c) of Sec. 75.310.
The existing standard requires, in part, that each main mine fan be
installed on the surface in an incombustible housing and be connected
to the mine opening with incombustible air ducts. Paragraph (a)(3) of
existing Sec. 75.310 requires that each main mine fan be equipped with
an automatic device that gives a signal when the fan either slows or
stops. The signal from this device is to be placed so it can be seen or
heard by a responsible person who has been designated by the operator
and who is always on duty when persons are underground.
During informational meetings held with the mining community, it
was suggested to the Agency that the standard should be clarified in
two respects. First, it was stated that the provision was not clear as
to whether the signal must automatically be given at a surface location
at the mine. Second, the Agency was asked to clarify whether a fan
monitoring system used in lieu of a circular pressure recorder to
monitor fan pressure must generate a continuous graph or chart.
To address the first of these concerns, proposed paragraph (a)(3)
specifically would require the signal to be given at a surface location
at the mine where it could be seen or heard by a responsible person
designated by the operator who is always on duty when persons are
underground. Under the proposal, two-way communication with working
sections would continue to be required. The requirement would be
extended to include established locations where persons are normally
assigned to work, such as belt transfer points and shops. This
requirement is consistent with existing Subpart Q--Communications, but
may require the installation of a limited number of mine phones at
locations off the section. Many of these locations are routinely
equipped with two-way communication even though it is not required by
the existing standard. It is not intended that this communications
capability be provided in areas where persons are assigned to work
temporarily, such as areas where secondary roof support is being
installed or where rock dust is being applied. The requirement that
two-way communication be provided to locations where persons are
normally assigned to work is intended to assure that these persons
receive prompt notification of fan stoppages. Because these work
locations are off the section, a lack of communication capabilities
could result in delays in notification and therefore delays in
withdrawal. The requirement that the signal be given at a surface
location at the mine is not intended to preclude the signal from also
being given elsewhere, such as at a central office, as long as it is
given at the mine as previously discussed.
The existing rule requires that each main mine fan be equipped with
a pressure recording device or a main mine fan monitoring system.
Traditionally, the instrument of choice for recording fan operating
pressure has been the mechanical, circular pressure recorder. As the
name implies, this device generates a record of the fan pressure. This
record is generated continuously as a chart that is replaced weekly.
Paragraph (a)(4) of the existing rule specifically refers to the use of
a fan monitoring system as an alternative to the pressure recorder. The
proposal eliminates this reference since other means of continuously
monitoring the fan pressure and providing a record may be acceptable.
Relatively recent advances in technology have permitted the measurement
and recording through other means. This proposed provision would permit
the use of this technology for monitoring main mine fan pressure,
provided, as proposed in paragraph (a)(4), that a continuous record of
the pressure is maintained. The proposal would require that when a
pressure monitoring device is used in lieu of a pressure recording
device, it produce a continuous graph or chart of the fan pressure. A
hard copy of the continuous graph or chart would be printed at regular
intervals of not more than 7 days. The generated graph or chart would
be required to correlate fan pressure to the time and date. The term
``continuous'' refers to the frequency with which the device polls the
fan pressure to obtain the data. It is the Agency's understanding that
typical polling frequency is on the order of a few seconds. MSHA is
soliciting comments as to an appropriate polling frequency that would
provide a record that is substantially continuous.
Records of the fan pressure generated by a pressure monitoring
device would be maintained in accordance with existing Sec. 75.312(h).
That is, the records would be maintained at a surface location at the
mine for at least one year and would be made available for inspection
by authorized representatives of the Secretary and the representative
of miners.
In addition to permitting fan monitoring systems to be used as a
means of recording fan pressure, the existing rule permits the use of
other devices for measuring fan pressure under certain circumstances.
This exception is for mines permitted to shut down main mine fans as
approved in the ventilation plan. As explained more fully in the
preamble for Sec. 75.310(a)(4) of the existing rule, this provision
provides a compliance alternative for small mines that normally operate
only one shift a day and do not have sealed or unsealed worked-out
areas. For these mines, the existing rule allows the use of a pressure
measuring device if the use of the device is approved in the
ventilation plan for the mine. The proposal would continue this
practice.
Paragraph (c) of the existing rule specifies the minimum
requirements for a fan monitoring system, including the parameters that
a fan monitoring system must monitor if it is to be used in lieu of the
daily fan check required by Sec. 75.312. The Agency continues to
support the use of these systems or any other technology effective in
enhancing safety but believes, based on comments received, that the
additional requirements relative to the use of these systems are
warranted. Specifically, commenters suggested that the information
generated by fan monitoring systems be provided at a surface location
at the mine where a responsible person is always on duty when persons
are underground and that this information be reviewed by mine
management. The Agency agrees with these suggestions and proposes in
paragraph (c) to require that when a fan monitoring system is used in
lieu of the daily fan examination required by Sec. 75.312 the
monitoring system would be required to have the capability of
providing, on demand, a printout of the information being monitored.
This capability is intended to facilitate the review of the information
by mine management required in Sec. 75.312(b).
Additionally, the proposal would require in paragraph (c)(5) that
the fan monitoring system provide monitoring, records, printouts, and
signals at a surface location at the mine where a responsible person
designated by the operator is always on duty and where signals from the
monitoring system can be seen or heard while anyone is underground. For
the purpose of the standard, a responsible person would be one who
receives the signal and makes proper notification. As with the
requirement that fan stoppage signals be given at a surface location at
the mine, this proposed requirement is not intended to preclude the
data from the fan monitoring system from also being provided elsewhere
as long as it is provided at the surface location at the mine. Also, as
with the requirement for two-way communication at the location where
fan stoppage signals are monitored, the proposal would require in
paragraph (c)(5) that the person at the designated surface location
have two-way communication with working sections and would extend the
requirement to established locations where persons are normally
assigned to work, such as belt transfer points and shops. This
requirement is consistent with existing Subpart Q--Communications, but
may require the installation of a limited number of mine phones at
locations off the section. Many of these locations are routinely
equipped with two-way communication even though it is not required by
the existing standard. It is not intended that this communications
capability be provided in areas where persons are assigned to work
temporarily, such as areas where secondary roof support is being
installed or where rock dust is being applied.
Section 75.311 Main Mine Fan Operation
The Agency has received comments that notification of mine
management officials, having sufficient authority to initiate
corrective actions is needed to assure that repairs are undertaken and
to assure continued reliable ventilation of the mine. Paragraph (d)
would be revised to provide for immediate notification of the mine
superintendent, assistant mine superintendent, or mine foreman if any
unusual variance in the mine ventilation pressure is observed, or if an
electrical or mechanical deficiency of a main fan is detected. The
standard would require appropriate action or repairs to be instituted
promptly. The Agency would expect that any necessary arrangements for
repair personnel and replacement parts would be promptly completed,
once the problem or need for repair was identified. One of the actions
appropriate to an unusual variance in pressure would be an immediate
investigation into the cause. Notification of mine management is
intended to assure that the appropriate actions are taken and that any
necessary repairs are completed as soon as possible. Both the
requirement for notification of mine management and the requirement for
prompt initiation of corrective actions were included in the previous
regulation. Although no change was intended, it was suggested that
these requirements be reinstated so as to eliminate any possible
confusion that might exist. After reconsideration, the Agency agrees
that the existing standard could be interpreted contrary to the intent
and therefore, is proposing the changes discussed. Since the current
ventilation standards became effective on November 16, 1992, questions
have arisen concerning the operation of back-up fans. The following
discussion is intended to address the questions received by the Agency.
When a back-up fan operates in place of the main mine fan, the
back-up fan is considered to be a main mine fan and all subpart D
requirements for main mine fans are applicable. These requirements
include: the installation requirements of Sec. 75.310, the operation
requirements in this Sec. 75.311, the examination and recordkeeping
requirements of Sec. 75.312, and, the unintentional fan stoppage
requirements of Sec. 75.313, which would apply should a back-up fan
fail while persons are underground.
A typical back-up fan application is where a back-up fan producing
an air quantity comparable to the main mine fan is substituted upon the
unintentional failure of the main mine fan. Section 75.313 would
require withdrawal of the miners if the backup fan, or main mine fan,
is not started within 15 minutes. If the back-up fan is started within
15 minutes, however, normal work may resume after an examination, since
the air quantity would be provided. An example would be two identical
fans at a shaft where one operates as the main mine fan while the other
is available to back up the main mine fan. Typically, the usage of
these fans is alternated.
Another possible application is a back-up fan producing a lesser
quantity than the main mine fan. In this case, unless the main mine fan
can be restored to operation within 15 minutes, withdrawal would be
required under Sec. 75.313. After withdrawal is complete, re-entry
could be permitted and electrical circuits restored as provided through
the approved ventilation plan. The Agency would expect operators to
rely on engineering data or actual ventilation survey results when
developing these ventilation plan provisions. During operation of the
back-up fan, the approved ventilation plan would only permit activity
which is related to maintaining the mine in safe condition. This work
could include pumping, urgent roof support installation, or other
safety-related work. The production of coal under these conditions
would not be permitted unless the mine were adequately ventilated and a
new ventilation plan has been approved.
Some multiple-fan ventilation systems are configured such that if
one fan fails, reduced air quantities continue to ventilate all
portions of the mine with no potentially hazardous air reversals
occurring. In such cases, ventilation plan provisions, if supported by
data, could be developed which would allow re-entry for the purposes
discussed in the previous paragraph. This activity would be limited to
maintaining the mine in safe condition until the full ventilation
system is restored to operation.
Under existing Sec. 75.311(b)(1), when a main mine fan is stopped
intentionally and the ventilating quantity of the main mine fan is not
maintained by a back-up fan, only persons necessary to evaluate the
effect of the fan stoppage or restart, or to perform maintenance or
repair work that cannot otherwise be made while the fan is operating,
are permitted underground. The maintenance or repair work which could
not be made while the fan is operating is limited to work or repair
which would endanger the safety of the worker if the fan were
operating. Examples of the type of work that may not be possible while
the fan is operating could include maintenance of the fan, repairs or
adjustments to ventilation controls immediately inby the fan that are
subject to high pressure differentials, and coating of mine surfaces
immediately inby the fan. These examples are given for the purpose of
facilitating understanding and are not considered all-inclusive.
While the Agency is proposing to change only paragraph (d) of
existing Sec. 75.311, comments are specifically solicited on the issues
discussed.
Section 75.312 Main Mine Fan Examinations and Records
The Agency would revise the existing standard in a number of
respects. Except in certain situations, a daily examination of the main
mine fans would be required each day that the mine operates. One
exception would be the use of a fan monitoring system in accordance
with Sec. 75.312. Requirements for training, recording of defects,
review of fan monitoring data, certifying and countersigning of records
would be added to the rule. Also, the standard would allow underground
power to remain energized when a fan is shut down for testing of the
automatic closing doors and fan signal device, provided that the fan is
restarted within 15 minutes, and would permit an alternative means of
testing that would not require stopping the fan.
Proper operation of main mine fans is critical to mine ventilation.
Paragraph (a) of the proposed rule, like the existing standard,
requires main mine fans and associated components, including devices
used to measure and record pressure, to be examined at least once each
day that the fan operates, unless a functioning fan monitoring system
is used. However, it is proposed that on any day when no one goes
underground that a fan examination would not be required. The Agency is
proposing this approach along with the provision that an examination of
the fan be completed prior to anyone's entering the mine, including
certified persons. Such an examination would assure that the fan is
operating properly. The Agency does not believe that any hazard can be
associated with not examining a mine fan if no one goes into the mine,
and solicits comments on this point.
During the informational meetings and later discussions, the Agency
was asked to clarify the qualifications of the person designated by the
operator to make daily fan examinations or the weekly fan examination
in the case of mines using fan monitoring systems. It continues to be
the position of the Agency that persons assigned to make this or any
other examination must be capable of making an adequate examination;
that is, an examination in a manner that assures the protection sought
by the standard. For this reason, and to address the concerns raised,
the proposal would adopt the words of the regulation in effect prior to
November 16, 1992, Sec. 75.300-4(a), and require in paragraphs (a) and
(b)(1) that main mine fans be examined by trained persons designated by
the operator. Since the purpose of the examination, as stated in the
proposed standard, is to assure the electrical and mechanical
reliability of the fan, the training that the examiner receives should
be focused on the electrical and mechanical functioning of fans.
The proposal, in paragraph (b)(1)(i), reflects comments received by
the Agency that in order for fan monitoring systems to be effective,
the data from these systems must be reviewed by mine management each
day. This review is intended to parallel the daily fan examination and
assure that responsible personnel are aware of the performance of the
fan and the fan monitoring system. In paragraph (b)(1)(ii), the
proposal would retain the requirement that at least once every 7 days
the monitoring system be tested and the main mine fan be examined.
Consistent with paragraph (a), as discussed previously, this
examination would be required to be done by a trained person designated
by the operator for the purpose of assuring the electrical and
mechanical reliability of the fan.
During the informational meetings and later discussions, the Agency
was also requested to clarify the application of paragraph (c) of this
standard. Some of the comments concerned whether underground electrical
circuits must be deenergized while tests of fan signal devices and
automatic closing doors are performed. Questions also arose as to
whether anyone could be in the mine during the tests and whether a
complete Sec. 75.360 preshift examination is required following the
tests before anyone could enter the mine.
The proposal clarifies the Agency's intent in paragraphs (c) and
(d) of the existing Sec. 75.312. The 31-day tests are to determine if
the alarm activates properly and, in multiple-fan systems, whether the
automatic doors, if required, close. Although fan stoppages for these
tests are normally of short duration, it must be recognized that on
rare occasions difficulty may be encountered in restarting the fans.
Therefore, the Agency has determined that it is not advisable to allow
miners underground during tests when the fan is stopped unless
concurrent activities are scheduled that are necessary to evaluate the
effect of the fan stoppage or restart, or to perform maintenance or
repair work that cannot otherwise be done while the fan is operating.
Another commenter continued to express concern that monthly
stoppage of fans for testing can cause undue stress on the fans. MSHA
has received assurances from fan manufacturers that stopping the fans
monthly to test the signal device will not cause undue stress on fans.
The Agency has also recently received assurances from motor
manufacturers that monthly stoppage of fans will not harm fan motors.
The Agency solicits comments on this issue as well as on any other
aspect of paragraphs (c) and (d).
The Agency has received requests for clarification as to whether
fans stopped for testing must be completely stopped during the 31-day
tests. The purpose of the standard is to assure proper operation of the
alarm and doors when a fan fails. Under certain conditions, such as
with a substantial natural ventilating pressure, the fan blades may
continue to rotate indefinitely. However, after power has been removed
and the fan is in the process of stopping, once the alarm sounds and
the doors close, the test has been successfully completed and the fan
may be restarted even though the fan blades may not have become
motionless.
Recognizing that the duration of these tests is normally short, the
proposal does not require underground electrical circuits to be
deenergized unless the fan cannot be restarted within 15 minutes or
unless persons are permitted underground in accordance with
Sec. 75.311(b)(1). In accordance with longstanding practice, as
indicated by a review of fan stoppage plans and consistent with
existing Sec. 75.313, an examination as described in Sec. 75.360 (b)
through (e) would be required if the fan is not restarted within 15
minutes. The Agency believes that after 15 minutes, additional action
is needed to protect miners from the hazards that may develop following
a fan stoppage.
Following publication of the existing standard, commenters
suggested that it may be possible to test the fan signals and the
automatic closing doors without shutting off the fans. If it is
possible to properly test the fan signal and automatic closing doors
without stopping the fan, then the Agency would permit such an
alternative. The Agency has become aware that such an approach is being
actively explored by at least one mining company. Therefore, in the
interest of allowing for advances in technology in this area, the
proposal would permit an alternative test that does not require
stopping the fan when the operator demonstrates that it provides the
same level of assurance that the automatic closing doors and fan
signals will function as intended during fan stoppages. Alternative
approaches to stopping the fan would be required to be approved in the
ventilation plan. The Agency would anticipate that any alternative
approach approved would retain the 31 day interval for demonstrating
that the automatic closing doors or fan signal will operate as
intended. The Agency solicits comments on this approach to fan tests.
Specifically, comments should address the method that should be used to
assure that the alternate test provides the same level of assurance
that the automatic closing doors and fan signals will function as
intended during fan stoppages.
Paragraph (f)(1) retains the requirement in the existing rule that
persons making main mine fan examinations certify by initials and date
at the fan or another location specified by the operator, that the
examinations were made, and that each certification identify the main
mine fan examined. Consistent with the practice of certifying that fan
examinations have been completed, the Agency is proposing a
certification requirement in paragraph (f)(2). The person completing
the review of the data from a fan monitoring system used in lieu of
daily fan examinations would certify that the review has been
completed. The manner of certification would be by initials and date on
the printout of the data from the system. To facilitate this
certification, proposed Sec. 75.310(c)(3), as discussed previously,
would require that the fan monitoring system be capable of providing,
on demand, a printout of the data.
Proposed paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) would set out the
requirements for recordkeeping and countersigning of main mine fan
examination records. Paragraph (g)(1) would require that by the end of
the shift on which the examination is made, persons making main mine
fan examinations would record all defects found during the examination
that may affect the operation of the fan. Unlike the previous standard,
the existing standard requires that only defects that are not corrected
by the end of the shift be recorded. The preamble to the existing rule
explains this approach as follows: ``* * * since the main purpose of
this recordkeeping requirement is to alert miners on oncoming shifts of
defects found during the fan examination that may affect their shifts,
it serves no additional safety benefit to require a record to be made
of deficiencies which are corrected by the end of the shift on which
the examination is made.'' However, following publication of the
standards, the Agency received comments that records of defects,
corrected or not, serve to indicate recurring problems with mine fans.
Upon reconsideration, MSHA agrees that recurring problems found during
main mine fan examinations may be indicative of more serious defects
and if mine management is not made aware of these problems through the
maintenance of records they could ultimately lead to a fan failure.
Therefore, similar to the previous standard, the proposal would require
that all defects found during the daily fan examination be recorded. As
with other proposed provisions of the rule, records required in
paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) would be made in a state-approved book
or in a bound book with sequential machine-numbered pages. Comments are
specifically solicited on this approach and on an alternative approach
wherein the Agency would develop, in coordination with the states,
books specific for the required records.
Since promulgation of the current regulation, the Agency has become
aware of some potential difficulties in reviewing records and data
generated by fan monitoring systems and atmospheric monitoring systems.
The problem involves the commingling of this information with other
information, such as production or operations-related data produced by
the computer systems of which they are a part. Since the physical
volume of production, operations, and other data may be considerable,
safety-related data may not be readily accessible which may discourage
the regular review and proper use of the information. A possible
solution is to require that all safety related data be printed on a
dedicated printer. The Agency is not proposing this solution at this
time but rather is soliciting comments on possible alternative
solutions. At this time, the Agency is proposing, in paragraph
(g)(2)(i), that the certified copies of data required by paragraph
(f)(2) be maintained separate from other computer generated reports or
data in order to facilitate the review of this data by the operator,
the representative of miners, and the Agency.
Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(ii) would require a record to be made of
any fan monitoring system malfunctions, electrical or mechanical
deficiencies in the monitoring system and any sudden increase or loss
in mine ventilating pressure. The records would be used to identify
chronic or recurring problems with the system that could indicate the
need for repairs, replacement of parts, or upgrades in hardware or
software in order to keep the system functioning in a reliable manner.
The record would be required to be made by the end of the shift on
which the review of the data is completed. This requirement would help
to assure that records are current and that potential problems are
identified in a timely manner.
Consistent with existing requirements, paragraph (g)(3) would
require that at mines permitted to shut down main mine fans under
Sec. 75.311, if a pressure recording device is not used, a record be
made of the time and fan pressure immediately before the fan is
stopped, and after the fan is restarted and the fan pressure
stabilizes. A record of these pressures at both shutdown and restart
would help identify any adverse change in ventilation that may have
occurred during the fan stoppage.
Paragraph (g)(4) would require that a record of the results of the
tests be made by the end of the shift on which the monthly test of the
automatic fan signal device or the automatic closing doors is
completed. This requirement would help to assure that potential
problems are identified in a timely manner so that proper operation of
the automatic fan signal device and the automatic closing doors can be
maintained.
Paragraph (g)(5) would require that the records required under
paragraphs (g)(1) through (4) be countersigned by the mine foreman by
the end of the mine foreman's next regularly scheduled working shift.
During an absence of the mine foreman, the person acting as mine
foreman would countersign. The Agency intends that the mine foreman,
the person most responsible for the day-to-day operation of the mine,
be notified of the information contained in the reports. Allowing until
the end of the mine foreman's next regularly scheduled working shift to
countersign the report would assure that the mine foreman is aware of
the results of the examination and would enable corrective actions to
be taken.
The proposal would also require that within two scheduled
production days after the mine foreman has countersigned, the record of
the examination be countersigned by the mine superintendent, mine
manager, or other mine official to whom the mine foreman is directly
accountable. The intent of the proposal is to assure that a higher
level official, empowered to redirect resources, be aware of any
condition requiring corrective actions. Since this second level
official may not be physically located at the mine on a full-time
basis, two scheduled production days are proposed as a reasonable
period of time for countersigning.
Section 75.313 Main Mine Fan Stoppage With Persons Underground
This standard establishes safety precautions for any unplanned main
mine fan stoppage that interrupts ventilation while persons are
underground. Paragraph (a)(3) requires all persons to be withdrawn from
working sections and areas where mechanized mining equipment is being
installed or removed when ventilation is interrupted by a main mine fan
stoppage. Areas where coal is being extracted or mechanized mining
equipment is being installed or removed are typically the places in an
underground mine where methane accumulation and other hazards to health
or safety can develop quickly when ventilation is interrupted. To avoid
exposure of miners to these hazards, timely withdrawal of persons is an
important safety practice. Although the Agency believes that the
promulgation of paragraph (a)(3) of this standard was done
appropriately, it is being reproposed for the purpose of receiving and
giving consideration to all pertinent comments.
Concerns have been raised about the possibility of methane
migration following fan stoppage, and the danger of using electrical
power to withdraw miners should this occur.
The proposal would revise stayed Sec. 75.313(c)(2) and (c)(3) which
address deenergization of electric power circuits and shutting-off of
mechanized equipment not located on working sections. It also would
revise paragraph (d)(1)(i) and (ii) and (d)(2) which deal with
examination of the mine before miners can return when power is
restored. The Agency is not proposing a revision of paragraphs (a),
(b), (c)(1), and (e) at this time. These paragraphs of stayed
Sec. 75.313 would remain unchanged from the stayed provision.
Under paragraph (c)(2) of the proposal, underground electrical
circuits must be deenergized, except those circuits necessary for
withdrawal if such circuits are located in areas and haulageways where
methane is not likely to migrate into or accumulate. The remaining
energized circuits would be deenergized as persons are withdrawn. The
Agency recognizes that in a limited number of mines methane may migrate
from adjacent areas and enter travelways or haulageways used by miners
for withdrawal. Under these conditions, permitting power circuits to
remain energized may increase the potential for a methane ignition. The
determination of the likelihood of methane migrating into haulageways
can be made through underground tests or computer simulations of
ventilation systems. It is the intention of the Agency that when it is
determined that methane is likely to accumulate or migrate into an
area, electrical circuits used for transportation would not be
permitted to remain energized and persons would not be permitted to
ride out of the mine in the event of a fan stoppage. The Agency would
expect the operator to provide the necessary data from which a
determination can be made. For the same reasons, paragraph (c)(3) of
the proposal would require mechanized equipment not located on working
sections to be shut off unless the equipment is necessary to withdraw
persons from the mine and is located in areas where methane migration
or accumulation is unlikely to occur. The Agency solicits comments on
the appropriateness of this type of mine-specific evaluation that
balances the expeditious withdrawal of miners against the potential for
methane accumulations.
Under paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (ii) of the proposal, the Agency is
clarifying that when ventilation is restored and before electrical
circuits are energized or nonpermissible mechanized equipment is
started, no one other than designated certified examiners would be
permitted to enter or reenter any underground area of the mine until an
examination is conducted as described in Sec. 75.360(b) through (e) and
the area is determined to be safe. This would prohibit nonpermissible
mechanized equipment from being started until an examination is
completed. However, permissible equipment may be used to facilitate the
examination required by the proposal. The Agency recognizes that it may
not be possible for examiners to enter the mine without some power
being restored in shafts or slopes to power elevators, hoists, or other
mechanical facilities operated in the shaft or slope. The Agency does
not intend to prohibit these facilities from being energized when used
to facilitate the examination, provided they are in intake air and the
power is limited to the shaft or slope in which they operate. The
Agency solicits comments on this approach to fan stoppages.
This examination would not be equivalent to a full-scale preshift
examination in that (1) a preshift is conducted within 3 hours
preceding the beginning of the shift, and (2) the recordkeeping
requirements of Sec. 75.360 would not apply for the examination
following a fan stoppage. However, in accordance with proposed
Sec. 75.363, a record of all hazardous conditions found would be
required. This type of examination is an accepted safety practice in
the industry. It is a primary means for determining the effectiveness
of a mine's ventilation system and of detecting hazards such as methane
accumulations that may be present in travelways or other areas where
miners may work after an interruption of ventilation. After a fan is
restarted, the examination will determine if the air is moving in its
proper direction and at its normal volume.
The Agency has reconsidered its position in stayed
Sec. 75.313(d)(2) and proposed in paragraph (d)(2) to specifically
require miners, other than designated certified examiners, to continue
to the surface should the fan restart during withdrawal. A commenter
has maintained that following a fan stoppage, a hazard could occur due
to methane accumulations, and therefore miners should not be permitted
to remain underground. MSHA agrees that such methane accumulations
could occur, but believes that any risk of ignition would be
significantly reduced by the requirement that mechanized equipment be
shut off and electrical power circuits deenergized except for equipment
and power circuits necessary for withdrawal if located in areas or
haulageways where methane is not likely to migrate to or accumulate.
Under stayed Sec. 75.313, the equipment or circuits used for withdrawal
must be shut off or deenergized as persons are withdrawn. However, to
provide an added margin of safety, MSHA is proposing withdrawal of all
miners to the surface except designated certified examiners who may
begin the examination required before miners return to underground
areas. The Agency specifically solicits comments on this issue.
This commenter further stated that when a fan is down for an
extended period of time, a fan should not be restarted until miners
safely reach the surface. However, as stated in the preamble to the
existing rule, MSHA believes that the fan should be restarted as soon
as possible to reestablish proper ventilation and to remove the
potential for methane accumulations. The Agency solicits comments on
the pros and cons of reestablishing ventilation by restarting a mine
fan during evacuation, and on having miners continue to the surface
should a fan restart during withdrawal.
Additionally, the proposal would require that an examination be
made as described in Sec. 75.360(b) through (e). Although complete
withdrawal of miners is required, this examination could begin once
ventilation has been restored and would be performed by certified
persons designated by the operator to conduct the examination. The
Agency is proposing this approach because of the safety concerns
associated with extended interruptions in the ventilation system. It is
recognized that under Sec. 75.360(a) a preshift examination can be made
for an oncoming shift while miners are underground. However, the
proposal would not allow miners to remain underground because of the
lack of ventilation compared to the situation where ventilation is
continuously maintained.
Section 75.320 Air Quality Detectors and Measurement Devices
The informational meetings and later discussions on the rule
indicated that simply requiring detectors for measuring methane and
oxygen deficiency to be maintained in permissible condition does not
completely satisfy the need for assuring proper maintenance. It was
suggested that without a requirement for maintenance to be done by a
trained person, similar to that which existed in the previous standard,
a person with less than the necessary understanding of the instrument
and the permissibility requirements might be assigned the task. The
proposal would require that methane detectors and other devices be
properly maintained at all times and, to assure the appropriate level
of maintenance, the proposal in paragraph (e) would require this
maintenance to be done by a trained person. This does not preclude the
operator from sending instruments to the manufacturer or another repair
facility for regular servicing.
Additionally, the proposal would require the operator to assure
that any instrument sent underground is in permissible condition so
that the use of the instrument does not pose an explosion hazard. The
level of care that must be exercised is of course a function of
instrument usage but, at a minimum, the Agency would expect that the
detector be visually examined to assure that it is properly assembled
and that all necessary components such as screws, lenses, and indicator
lamps are present. As with the requirement that maintenance be done by
a trained person, this requirement was present in the previous standard
and is being proposed to further assure that methane detectors do not
pose a hazard and will perform properly during the shift.
Section 75.321 Air Quality
This proposal would continue a basic air quality requirement that
has been in place since 1970 that air in areas where persons work or
travel contain at least 19.5 percent oxygen and not more than 0.5
percent carbon dioxide, and the volume and velocity of the air current
in these areas be sufficient to dilute, render harmless, and carry away
flammable, explosive, noxious, and harmful gases, dusts, smoke, and
fumes. The proposal would not require this carbon dioxide level to be
applied to bleeder entries and worked-out areas.
MSHA has interpreted former Sec. 75.301 to require at least 19.5
percent oxygen and no greater than 0.5 percent carbon dioxide in
bleeder systems where persons work or travel. Similarly, it was the
intent of the Agency to enforce Sec. 75.321 to require compliance with
these levels where persons would be exposed in bleeder entries and in
worked-out areas. However, the application of this provision to
bleeders has been stayed by the D.C. Circuit pending the outcome of
litigation on the rule. The Agency continues to believe that providing
satisfactory air quality is essential to protect the miners and
examiners whenever they work or travel in bleeder entries and worked-
out areas. Therefore, the proposal includes a new provision specifying
that the air in bleeder entries and worked-out areas where persons work
or travel contain at least 19.5 percent oxygen, and that carbon dioxide
not exceed 0.5 percent TWA (Time Weighted Average) and 3.0 percent STEL
(Short Term Exposure Limit). A TWA is the time-weighted average
concentration for a normal 8-hour workday and a 40-hour workweek. A
STEL is a 15-minute TWA exposure which can not be exceeded at any time
during a workday even if the 8-hour TWA is within the specified TWA.
Exposures above the TWA up to the STEL can not be longer than 15
minutes and can not occur more than four times per day. There must be
at least 60 minutes between successive exposures in this range. These
proposed levels are identical to the levels contained in MSHA's
proposed air quality standards for coal and metal and nonmetal mines
and the 1992 Threshold Limit Values (TLV) as specified by the American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
In light of the ongoing air quality rulemaking, the Agency is not
at this time proposing to modify existing air quality standards as
applied to areas where persons work or travel, other than bleeder
entries and worked-out areas. The Agency will consider the appropriate
course of action on this issue as part of the air quality rulemaking.
Bleeder entries and worked-out areas are required to be traveled or
evaluated at least weekly. This is most often done by a person
traveling alone who is often required to be in the bleeder entries or
worked-out areas for an extended period. The purpose of this standard
is to protect miners, not to regulate air quality where persons are not
exposed. Therefore, oxygen and carbon dioxide levels at bleeder
connectors and bleeder evaluation points that do not meet the proposed
concentrations would not constitute a violation of the standard if
examinations are performed remotely or if persons making the
examination can otherwise remain in air that meets the proposal.
According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(NIOSH Respirator Decision Logic, May 1987), 19.5 percent oxygen
provides an adequate amount of oxygen for most work assignments and
incorporates a safety factor. Also according to NIOSH, the safety
factor is needed because oxygen-deficient atmospheres offer little
warning of danger. In the NIOSH publication, ``A Guide to Safety in
Confined Spaces,'' (page 4), a chart is presented that indicates that
19.5 percent oxygen is the minimum level for safe entry into an area,
and that at a level of 16 percent, judgement and breathing are
impaired. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI), in ANSI
Z88.2-1992, ``American National Standard for Respiratory Protection''
recognizes that at 16 percent oxygen there is an impairment in the
ability to think and pay attention, and a reduction in coordination.
ANSI recognizes that at 19 percent oxygen there are some adverse
physiological effects, but they are unnoticeable.
The need for regulating the oxygen level where persons work or
travel in bleeder entries is illustrated by two mining accidents. One
of these accidents resulted in the death of a mine examiner and the
second resulted in the near death of two additional individuals, one of
whom was a mine examiner. Mine examiners are, through training and
experience, the individuals best able to identify the hazards
associated with irrespirable atmospheres. The first accident occurred
at the Arclar Mine in Equality, Illinois in 1989. Prior to
implementation of the existing standard, a mine examiner, for unknown
reasons, entered a worked-out area that was posted with a danger sign.
Under the existing regulation, ventilation or sealing of this area,
rather than posting, would be required. Because the area was not
sealed, the existing regulation would require the area to be examined
during the weekly examination. The proposal would require that the
route of travel for the examiner would contain at least 19.5 percent
oxygen. Had the proposal been in place when the examiner entered the
worked-out area, there is a strong likelihood that he would not have
died.
The second accident, although not in a bleeder entry or worked-out
area, is illustrative of what can happen when individuals, including
mine examiners, are subjected to oxygen deficient air. In 1983 at the
Bird No. 3 Mine in Riverside, Pennsylvania, an assistant mine foreman,
a certified person, entered the mine for the purpose of conducting an
examination. After traveling approximately 1100 feet, the examiner
became dizzy, noticed that his flame safety lamp had extinguished and
withdrew approximately 200 feet where he sat down and apparently became
unconscious. A second individual upon entering the area in search of
the examiner also became dizzy but was able to withdraw to a location
that was not oxygen deficient. When the mine examiner regained
consciousness, his cap lamp battery had discharged and he traveled in
total darkness until he encountered a mine rescue team. Air samples
collected in the area where the mine examiner first became dizzy
indicated an oxygen concentration of about 16.8 percent, while other
samples collected nearby indicated oxygen concentrations of nearly 20
percent.
Because mine examiners are required to work or travel in areas
where oxygen-deficient air could occur without warning, and they
normally travel and work alone, there must be a requirement that
provides them the protection necessary for the performance of their
duties under these conditions. It is important that the level for
oxygen be established above that identified as resulting in impaired
judgement because it is essential that individuals traveling in these
areas remain highly alert. The hazards that can exist in bleeder
entries and worked-out areas include elevated methane levels, poor
footing, loose and unstable roof, and water accumulations. For this
reason, the Agency is proposing to adopt a minimum level of oxygen of
19.5 percent as recommended by NIOSH.
MSHA is also concerned with the effects of other gases often found
in bleeder entries. Section 75.322 of the existing regulation limits
the concentration of noxious or poisonous gases to the current (1971)
Threshold Limit Values (TLV's) as adopted and applied by the American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). Section
75.322 specifically excludes carbon dioxide since it is covered by
Sec. 75.321. However, in light of the Court's stay of Sec. 75.321(a)
relative to bleeder entries, the Agency is proposing a separate
standard for carbon dioxide levels for areas where persons work or
travel in bleeder entries and worked-out areas. The levels proposed,
0.5 percent TWA and 3.0 percent STEL, when considered in conjunction
with the requirements of Sec. 75.322 and the proposed requirement for
oxygen, will aid in providing persons working or traveling in these
areas with a safe and healthful working environment. The Agency
recognizes that the effects of carbon dioxide are both chronic and
acute and has therefore elected to propose both a time weighted average
and a short term exposure limit. NIOSH, in recommending a standard for
carbon dioxide, also recognized this and recommended a similar
approach. The NIOSH recommendation, made in a Criteria Document
published in 1976, proposed a TWA concentration of 1.0 percent and a
ceiling value of 3.0 percent not to exceed 10 minutes. In making this
recommendation, NIOSH states that there are ``additive stress effects
of increased carbon dioxide concentrations and exercise * * *'' As
support for this, the NIOSH document cites research that showed that
healthy, trained subjects exposed to 2.8 to 5.2 percent carbon dioxide
at maximum exercise levels experienced respiratory difficulty, impaired
vision, severe headache, and mental confusion; three subjects
collapsed. At or below 2.8 percent carbon dioxide combined with lower,
but still strenuous, levels of exercise, no ill effects other than
awareness of increased ventilation were experienced by the subjects.
During rulemaking on the proposed air quality standard, NIOSH
recommended a 0.5 percent TWA and a 3.0 percent STEL. NIOSH made a
similar recommendation to OSHA during that Agency's permissible
exposure limit (PEL) rulemaking. Given the work environment in bleeder
entries and worked-out areas, as described earlier, the Agency believes
that the dual regulatory approach proposed is appropriate. In addition
to examiners, other miners may be required to work in the bleeder
entries and worked-out areas, performing duties such as installing roof
support, pumping water, recovering materials or adjusting ventilation.
The levels proposed would provide them with the necessary protection.
In addition, MSHA is concerned with the synergistic effects that
carbon dioxide has on the body when combined with low oxygen levels,
especially at levels higher than 0.5 percent TWA. Carbon dioxide
affects the blood pH, which is critical to the proper metabolism of
oxygen. Because of the nature of the hazardous work environment in
bleeder entries and worked-out areas, the Agency believes that it must
be careful to establish levels which would not impact on the body's
ability to deal with the conditions encountered. The Agency solicits
comments on the appropriateness of these, or other concentration levels
for carbon dioxide in areas where the examiner works or travels in
bleeder entries and worked-out areas, along with the rationale for
determining the appropriate level for bleeder entries and worked-out
areas. However, as stated previously, it is not the intent of the
Agency that the levels established in paragraph (2) of the proposed
standard be applied to areas other than those areas within the bleeder
entries and worked-out areas where persons work or travel. In light of
this, it is not anticipated that many of the nation's coal mines would
be required to increase the volume of air currently being used to
ventilate bleeders and worked-out areas as a result of this proposed
standard.
Section 75.323 Actions for Excessive Methane
MSHA is proposing to revise paragraphs (b)(1)(ii), (c)(1), and
(d)(2)(i) of the existing standard in response to comments made during
informational meetings and subsequent discussions.
Methane poses a significant hazard to miners when it is permitted
to accumulate without corrective action being taken quickly. The Agency
received comments at its informational meetings asking MSHA to clarify
when ventilation changes must be made to reduce methane concentrations
to acceptable levels. MSHA has always intended that these changes be
made at once. In response to these comments, the Agency is proposing to
revise paragraphs (b)(1)(ii), (c)(1) and (d)(2)(i) to require that
these changes be made ``at once,'' the phrase used in former
Secs. 75.308 and 75.309.
Although the Agency believes that the promulgation of paragraph (b)
of this standard was done appropriately, it is being reproposed with
the addition of the phrase ``at once'' for the purposes of receiving
and giving consideration to all pertinent comments. When 1.0 percent or
more methane is present in a working place, an intake air course, or an
area where mechanized mining equipment is being installed or removed,
paragraph (b)(1) would require all electrical, diesel, and battery-
powered equipment in the affected working place, intake air course or
other area, except for intrinsically safe AMS, to be deenergized or
shut off. Deenergizing or shutting off this equipment would protect
miners by preventing this equipment from providing ignition sources.
If 1.5 percent methane or more is present in a working place, an
intake air course, or an area where mechanized mining equipment is
being installed or removed, paragraph (b)(2) would require persons to
be withdrawn from the affected area. The basic requirement for
withdrawal of persons is retained from the previous standard and the
reproposal would expand this basic requirement to include areas where
mechanized mining equipment is being installed or removed. The presence
of methane in these areas can pose a significant risk to miners and
therefore their withdrawal from the affected area is essential to their
safety. Paragraph (b)(2) would also require that all electric power to
equipment in affected areas be disconnected at the power source. This
prevents accidental reenergization of equipment and removes power from
cables and circuits which may also be ignition sources. No other work
is permitted in the affected area until the concentration of methane is
less than 1.0 percent.
Paragraph (b)(2) would be amended by adding ``mechanized'' before
mining equipment for consistency with other provisions of the rule.
Section 75.324 Intentional Changes in the Ventilation System
MSHA is not proposing any changes to the wording of Sec. 75.324 at
this time. The following discussion clarifies MSHA's interpretation of
what the Agency considers to be an intentional change that could
materially affect the safety or health of persons in the mine.
Paragraph (a) of the existing rule requires that a ventilation
change be supervised by a person designated by the mine operator when a
change in section ventilation is in excess of a specified quantity or
when a ventilation change alters the main air current of the mine or
any split of the main air current in a manner that could materially
affect the safety or health of miners underground. Paragraph (b) of the
existing rule specifies additional requirements that apply only to the
ventilation changes described in paragraph (a) of this section. That
is, before such an intentional air change is made, electric power must
be removed from areas that may be affected by the change and mechanized
equipment in those areas must be shut off. Also, only persons making
the ventilation change are permitted in the mine while the change is
being made. Afterward, certified persons must examine the areas
affected by the change to determine whether methane accumulations or
oxygen deficiencies have resulted. Electric power is not permitted to
be restored to affected areas nor is mechanized equipment to be
restarted until these tests have been made and the areas are determined
to be safe.
Since this standard went into effect in November 1992, the Agency
has become aware of concerns suggesting that it is sometimes difficult
to determine whether an intentional change in the air current could
materially affect the safety or health of miners. However, MSHA regards
it as impractical to follow a ``cookbook'' approach to identifying what
will or will not require approval. Each circumstance is to be reviewed
by the operator on its own merits. To illustrate the Agency's
expectations, the following is a list of some examples of what MSHA
considers intentional changes that would materially affect the safety
or health of miners. These examples are not meant to include all
possibilities, but are meant to provide some general guidance: adding a
new shaft; bringing a new fan on line; changing the direction of air in
an air course; changing the direction of air in a bleeder system;
shutting down one fan in a multiple fan system; starting a new
operating section with ventilating quantities redistributed from other
sections of the mine; changing entries from intakes to returns and vice
versa; and any change that affects the information required by
Sec. 75.371, Mine ventilation plan; contents.
The results of changes to a complex ventilation system are not
always easy to predict, and for that reason caution must be used when
making significant changes to one air split or several air splits. The
balance of splits can be affected and may result in air reversals, dead
air spaces, or insufficient air flow in critical areas. For this
reason, such changes must be evaluated by a certified person examining
the affected areas before production is resumed. Approval is required
by paragraph (c) of Sec. 75.370 Mine ventilation plan; submission and
approval, if the change alters the main air current in a manner that
could materially affect the safety or health of miners. When questions
arise as to whether an anticipated change requires prior approval, MSHA
is available to discuss the situation for guidance on whether a request
for approval should be submitted. While the Agency is not contemplating
a change to Sec. 75.324 at this time, comments are specifically
solicited on the issues discussed.
Section 75.325 Air Quantity
Although the Agency believes that the promulgation of paragraph (d)
of this standard was done appropriately, it is being reproposed for the
purposes of receiving and giving consideration to all pertinent
comments. Paragraph (d) would require that areas where mechanized
mining equipment is being installed or removed be ventilated and that
the quantity of air and the ventilation controls necessary to provide
these quantities be specified in the approved ventilation plan. As
demonstrated by the explosion at the William Station Mine, ventilation
of these areas is essential and will greatly enhance the protection
provided to miners.
Section 75.330 Face Ventilation Control Devices
During the informational meetings and later discussions, it became
apparent that members of the mining community were concerned about the
appropriateness of using a performance standard relative to the volume
of air that must be provided to working faces. It was suggested that
such an approach suffered from two flaws: (1) By simply requiring
sufficient air, a problem could develop and go unnoticed before
corrective action is required; and (2) since most miners do not have
the means for measuring ventilation parameters; i.e., anemometers and
methane detectors, it may not be possible for the average miner to
determine compliance with the performance standard. It has been
suggested that in addition to the performance standard, the Agency
should propose requirements for line brattice similar to those that
existed in the previous regulation. After considering this
recommendation in light of the expressed concerns, the Agency is
proposing, in paragraph (c), that when a line brattice or other face
ventilation control device is damaged to the extent that ventilation of
the working face is inadequate, production activities would cease until
necessary repairs are made. It is the intent of the Agency to assure
that damaged ventilation controls are repaired and that mining is
discontinued until adequate face ventilation is restored.
Section 75.332 Working Sections and Working Places
Although the Agency believes that the promulgation of paragraph
(a)(1) of this standard was done appropriately, it is being reproposed
for the purposes of receiving and giving consideration to all pertinent
comments. The ventilation of working areas has historically been
accomplished through the use of a separate split of intake air. The
proposal would provide this same level of protection to miners working
in areas where equipment is being installed or removed.
The Agency is not proposing any changes to Sec. 75.332 at this
time. However, questions have come to the attention of the Agency
concerning the existing standard. The following discussion is intended
to address these questions.
The existing requirements of Sec. 75.332 are largely derived from
earlier MSHA regulations (Sec. 75.311 and Sec. 75.312). Under existing
Sec. 75.332, air which has passed through any area not examined under
Sec. 75.360, Sec. 75.361 or Sec. 75.364, or through any area which has
been second mined, cannot be used to ventilate any working place. After
the rule became effective, it was suggested that it would be possible
to ventilate working places with intake air coursed through an
evaluated, nonpillared worked-out area, because evaluation in lieu of
travel to the point of deepest penetration is at some times acceptable
under Sec. 75.364. As explained in the following discussion, this is
not the case. Existing Sec. 75.332(a)(1) requires that each working
section and each area where mechanized mining equipment is being
installed or removed be ventilated by a separate split of ``intake
air.'' Existing Sec. 75.301 defines return air as ``Air that has
ventilated the last working place of any working section or any worked-
out area, whether pillared or nonpillared * * *.'' Reading these two
existing provisions together, one concludes that air that has
ventilated a worked-out area is return air and therefore cannot be used
to ventilate any working section or any area where equipment is being
installed or removed.
A second question concerns the conditions under which air that has
passed by an unsealed worked-out area can be used to ventilate a
working section. Worked-out areas that are not sealed must be
ventilated, Sec. 75.334(a). Under Sec. 75.332(b)(1) the air used to
ventilate worked-out areas cannot be used to ventilate working
sections, unless examined in accordance with Sec. 75.360, Sec. 75.361,
or Sec. 75.364. There is only one condition under which air that passes
by a worked-out area that is not examined can be used to ventilate a
working section or an area where equipment is being installed or
removed. This is when the worked-out area is ventilated by a separate
split of air and the remainder of the intake air continues past the
worked-out area. This remaining intake air could be used to ventilate a
working section or an area where equipment is being installed or
removed. However, the air that enters the worked-out area cannot
reenter the intake air course because the definition of return air, in
Sec. 75.301, states in part that ``If air mixes with air that has
ventilated the last working place on any split of any working section
or any worked-out area, whether pillared or nonpillared, it is
considered return air.'' In the case of worked-out areas with multiple
openings, this would preclude air from being used to ventilate a
working place when it enters a worked-out area in one entry and exits
the worked-out area in another entry to remix with the air passing by.
To determine that the air that has passed by a worked-out area has
not been contaminated, proposed Sec. 75.360(b)(4) would require that
when intake entries carry air by worked-out areas to ventilate working
places where persons are scheduled to work, the approaches to the
worked-out areas be preshift examined immediately inby and outby each
entry that carries air into the worked-out area. The purpose of this
examination is to assure that the air is not oxygen deficient and does
not contain methane in excess of allowable limits and to determine that
the air is not coming from the worked-out area. By preshift examining
the intake entries in these areas, it can be determined that the air in
these entries is suitable for use in working places. Additionally,
proposed Sec. 75.360(b)(4) would require that when intake entries carry
air by worked-out areas to ventilate working places where persons are
scheduled to work, the entries used to carry air into the worked-out
area be preshift examined at a point immediately inby the intersection
of each entry with the intake air course. Preshift examining of these
entries is intended to assure that air that enters a worked-out area in
one entry does not reenter the intake air course.
While the Agency is not contemplating a change to Sec. 75.332 at
this time, comments are specifically solicited on the issues discussed.
Section 75.333 Ventilation Controls
The Agency is proposing to revise paragraphs (a), (b)(1), (b)(3),
(b)(4), and (e)(1) and add new paragraph (h) to Sec. 75.333.
As proposed, paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(3), and (b)(4) would be revised
to clarify the application of the permanent ventilation control
standards when a continuous face haulage system is used. Continuous
face haulage systems employ mobile bridge conveyors to transport coal
directly from the continuous mining machine to a low profile conveyor
belt. The mobile bridge system uses a ``dolly'' to transfer the coal to
the low profile conveyor belt at the section loading point. Because the
dolly travels along the low profile conveyor belt, the location of the
section loading point changes during mining as the mobile bridge dolly
moves. For escapeway purposes, paragraph (b)(4) would designate the
loading point for a continuous haulage system as the inby most point of
travel of the dolly.
In the past, the Agency has not required the use of permanent
ventilation controls to separate continuous face haulage systems from
return, intake, or primary escapeway entries in rooms developed 600
feet or less from the centerline of the entry from which the rooms were
developed. As with the existing standard, proposed paragraph (b)(1)
would require permanent stoppings or other permanent ventilation
control devices between intake and return air courses, except temporary
controls may be used in rooms that are 600 feet or less from the
centerline of the entry from which the room was developed. The proposal
would clarify the existing standard by explicitly stating that when
continuous face haulage systems are used, temporary controls may be
used to separate the system from the return and intake in rooms
developed 600 feet or less from the centerline of the entry from which
the rooms were developed. Because the room in which the continuous
haulage system is installed is continuously attended by the system
operators, an immediate response to any safety-related problem with the
haulage system would be expected. Additionally, two or three rooms are
often concurrently developed using this system and the life of the
actively developing rooms is often less than three days. The result of
this short life is that mining in these rooms would often be completed
before construction of permanent controls is finished. The proposal
recognizes the short-lived nature of these rooms and permits the use of
properly constructed temporary controls to deliver ventilation to the
faces. Requiring the construction of permanent controls in these
instances would result in no additional safety benefit. The Agency has
also received comment that additional material handling hazards would
be associated with the transportation of permanent control construction
materials into an often limited number of rooms during development.
Additionally, access to the continuous haulage system is required
through crosscuts for maintenance and operation of the system.
For these reasons, proposed paragraph (b)(3) would also be revised
to require that when continuous face haulage systems are used,
permanent stoppings or other permanent ventilation control devices must
be built and maintained to separate the haulage entry in which the low
profile belt structure is located from intake entries only to the outby
travel point of the dolly. The proposal would also provide that for
continuous haulage systems, temporary ventilation controls may be used
in rooms that are 600 feet or less from the centerline of the entry
from which the rooms were developed. In all other cases permanent
stoppings or other permanent ventilation control devices would continue
to be required to separate belt conveyor haulageways from intake air
courses when air in the intake air course is used to provide air to
active working places.
Proposed paragraph (b)(4) would continue to require permanent
stoppings or other permanent ventilation control devices ``* * * to
separate the primary escapeway from belt and trolley haulage entries,
as required by Sec. 75.380(g).'' In addition, the proposal would
require that when continuous face haulage systems are used, the loading
point for purposes of Sec. 75.380(g) would be the inby most point of
travel of the dolly. The Agency intends that this separation be
maintained to the most inby point of travel of the dolly in order to
provide protection along the entire length of the conveyor belt entry.
A greater or lesser distance for the separation of the conveyor belt
structure from the primary escapeway may be specified and approved in
the ventilation plan provided it poses no hazard to miners. This
provision is consistent with the requirements of Sec. 75.380(g).
The portion of the structure necessary to accommodate the movement
of the dolly is considered as part of the face haulage system.
Consistent with current MSHA policy, waterlines would not be required
to parallel continuous face haulage systems using a low profile
conveyor belt if the length of the belt is less that 600 feet and
sufficient fire hose is available to extend to the working face. Fire
suppression devices and signal and alarm systems are not required to be
installed along such conveyor belts. However, the belts considered as
face equipment must have fire protection at the belt drive as required
by Sec. 75.1100-2(e) of the existing standard and, if hydraulically
operated, must have fire suppression devices as required by existing
Sec. 75.1107. Additionally, for safety reasons, check curtains should
not be installed across the area of travel of the dolly.
The Agency has become aware of questions on the part of a segment
of the industry relative to what are acceptable construction methods
and materials for the construction of permanent ventilation controls,
excluding seals, that will result in controls that satisfy the
definition of durable given in paragraph (a) of the existing standard.
The Agency is addressing these questions by proposing to eliminate the
definition of durable and to modify paragraph (e)(1) to require these
controls to be constructed in a manner and of materials that results in
a construction that has been tested and shown to have a minimum
strength of 39 pounds per square foot as tested under ASTM E72-80
Section 12--Transverse Load-Specimen Vertical, load only. The proposal
retains the intent and requirement of the existing standard because the
8-inch hollow-core concrete block stopping with mortared joints, to
which all other constructions were tied under the definition of durable
in the existing standard, has been tested and shown to have a minimum
strength of 39 pounds per square foot.
The Agency recognizes that other construction methods and materials
may be available or developed that will result in permanent ventilation
controls that are suitable for the intended purpose. The proposal would
permit alternative constructions for ventilation controls constructed
after [INSERT THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS RULE] under paragraph
(e)(1)(i) provided they have been tested and shown to have a minimum
strength of 39 pounds per square foot. For a control to be acceptable,
the operator would have to demonstrate that the control has been tested
and shown to provide a strength of 39 pounds per square foot as tested
under ASTM E72-80 Section 12--Transverse Load-Specimen Vertical, load
only. In instances where a construction has already been tested and
shown to possess the requisite strength, the operator need only provide
documentation of the test results. MSHA will maintain and will make
available for review at each MSHA District Office a listing of
construction methods and materials that have been tested and have
demonstrated a strength of at least 39 pounds per square foot. Persons
wishing to have a construction method or material included in this
listing should submit documentation of testing to the Agency. To the
extent possible, MSHA will also maintain a listing of construction
methods and materials that have failed to demonstrate a strength of at
least 39 pounds per square foot when tested under ASTM E72-80 Section
12--Transverse Load-Specimen Vertical, load only. Persons wishing to
have a construction method or material included in this listing should
submit documentation of testing to the Agency. It should be noted that
solid concrete block stoppings that are dry-stacked and plastered on
only one side have not been shown to have a minimum strength of at
least 39 pounds per square foot when tested under ASTM E72-80 Section
12--Transverse Load-Specimen Vertical, load only. Unless a stronger
plaster is developed, it is unlikely that a stopping plastered on only
one side would be acceptable under the current rule or this proposed
revision.
As with the existing rule, the proposal would require, in paragraph
(e)(1)(ii), that all overcasts, undercasts, shaft partitions, permanent
stoppings, and regulators, installed after November 15, 1992, be
constructed of noncombustible material.
Also like the existing standard, the proposal lists materials that
would be suitable for these controls and would continue to prohibit
ventilation controls installed after November 15, 1992, from being
constructed of aluminum.
The Agency is proposing a new paragraph (h) to assure that all
permanent ventilation controls, including all doors and seals,
regardless of the construction date, be maintained to serve the purpose
for which they were built. Existing Sec. 75.333(e)(1) requires that
ventilation controls be maintained to serve the purpose for which they
were built. Because existing Sec. 75.333(e)(1) also specifies that
ventilation controls installed after November 15, 1992, be constructed
of durable and noncombustible material, a commenter questioned whether
the maintenance requirement applied only to ventilation controls
constructed after November 15, 1992. That is not the case. Given the
importance of these devices in preserving the integrity of the mine
ventilation system, MSHA is proposing the maintenance provision in a
new paragraph to explicitly state that all permanent ventilation
controls, including seals, must be maintained to serve their intended
purpose. With regard to seal maintenance, the Agency does not intend
that the maintenance standard would be applied to seals located within
another sealed area. Further, the Agency does not intend that the
standard would apply to seals which have become consumed within a gob
area which is ventilated and evaluated in a manner approved through the
mine ventilation plan.
Section 75.334 Worked-out Areas and Areas Where Pillars Are Being
Recovered
MSHA is proposing to revise paragraph (e) and to repropose existing
paragraph (f). A requirement would be added in paragraph (e) that
provides that in addition to designing mining systems so that worked-
out areas can be sealed, the location and sequence of construction of
proposed seals would also be specified in the approved ventilation
plan. Improper location and sequencing of seal construction can have a
deleterious effect on mine air quality and ventilation and therefore
the location and sequence of construction of these seals should be
reviewed and approved as a part of the ventilation plan. Under the
previous standard, the proposed location and sequence of construction
of all necessary mine seals was required to be submitted for approval
as part of the sealing plan required by Sec. 75.330. Under the existing
standard, the location of proposed seals is required to be shown on the
ventilation map required by Sec. 75.372. Showing the location on the
map does not subject the location to approval and therefore the Agency
agrees that it does not satisfy the objective of assuring proper
location and sequencing. The proposal would rectify this situation.
Through meetings with various segments of the mining community, the
Agency also became aware of a concern that paragraph (f) of Sec. 75.334
may have been promulgated without the benefit of adequate comment.
Paragraph (f) addresses mines with a demonstrated history of
spontaneous combustion or those located in coal seams determined to be
susceptible to spontaneous combustion. Although the Agency believes
that the promulgation of paragraph (f) of this standard was done
appropriately, it is being reproposed for the purposes of receiving and
giving consideration to all pertinent comments.
As discussed in the preamble to the existing standard, several
commenters suggested that bleeder systems should not be required for
all mines, stating that in some mines the practice of ventilating
worked-out areas increases the risk of spontaneous combustion by
supplying oxygen to combustion-prone materials in these areas. These
commenters requested that the final rule include provisions to address
spontaneous combustion. MSHA recognized the need to reduce the flow of
oxygen to areas where there is a likelihood of spontaneous combustion
and the existing rule requires the approved ventilation plan to address
spontaneous combustion in mines with a demonstrated history of this
hazard or mines that are located in coal seams determined to be
susceptible to spontaneous combustion.
Experience gained through application of this standard has
demonstrated that paragraph (f) applies to only a few mines. However,
studies by the Bureau of Mines have identified the volatile properties
of coal seams and have determined that certain seams are susceptible to
spontaneous combustion. The existing standard, as reproposed, is also
directed to mines in these seams.
Under paragraph (f) of the proposal, the approved ventilation plans
for mines that are susceptible to spontaneous combustion must specify
measures to detect methane, carbon monoxide, and oxygen concentrations
in worked-out areas. These measures must be taken during and after
pillar recovery and in worked-out areas where no pillars have been
recovered. The purpose of these measures is to determine if worked-out
areas must be ventilated or sealed. If the methane concentration or
other hazards in the worked-out area cannot be controlled while the
mine is limiting airflow to avoid spontaneous combustion, it may be
necessary to ventilate or seal the worked-out area. These measures also
help to determine the extent to which the worked-out areas can be
ventilated without increasing the spontaneous combustion hazard.
The Agency is concerned with the inability of some mines that have
a spontaneous combustion problem to reduce the oxygen content to a
sufficiently low level. It is well known that the oxygen level in a gob
varies depending on the location where the measurement is made. For
example, the periphery of a gob normally will have higher oxygen levels
than the interior of the gob. The oxygen level in the interior of the
gob is critical when dealing with spontaneous combustion. If conditions
are such that the oxygen content in critical areas within a gob cannot
be reduced below that necessary for a methane ignition to occur, a
bleederless system may not be appropriate. The Agency solicits comments
on this subject.
Under the provisions of paragraph (f) the operator is required to
specify the action that will be taken to protect miners from the
hazards of spontaneous combustion. This requirement would be triggered
if the mine has a demonstrated history of spontaneous combustion, or,
if an evaluation of the susceptibility of the coal seam to spontaneous
combustion leads to a mine operator determination that a bleeder system
should not be used. In these cases the approved ventilation plan must
specify the methods that the operator will use to control spontaneous
combustion, as well as accumulations of methane-air mixtures and other
gases, dusts, and fumes in the worked-out area.
During informational meetings and through the application of this
standard, the Agency has become aware that the conditions under which
air flow can be adjusted within a bleeder system is the subject of some
concern. The following discussion is intended to address this concern
and clarify the Agency's position. When adjustments to air flow in the
bleeder entries are needed to assure proper functioning of the system,
these adjustments would be made in accordance with Sec. 75.324,
Intentional changes in the ventilation system. As explained in the
preamble discussion of existing Sec. 75.324, when the adjustment in the
bleeder system results in a change in direction of the air in the
bleeder entry, this is a change in ventilation that could materially
affect the safety or health of miners, and the precautions of
Sec. 75.324 apply. As addressed under Sec. 75.324, other changes to air
flow in the bleeder entry may also materially affect the safety or
health of miners, and the precautions of Sec. 75.324 would apply.
However, it is not intended that each and every change to bleeder
ventilation be considered to materially affect the safety or health of
miners. For example, minor changes needed to correct a localized
condition, such as removing a methane accumulation in a high spot, may
be possible. The operator must evaluate each change prior to its
implementation and, if doubt exists as to whether the change is
material, safety dictates that the change be treated as a material
change and the provisions of Sec. 75.324 be followed.
Section 75.340 Underground Electrical Installations
MSHA proposes to revise paragraph (a) of existing Sec. 75.340 for
the purpose of clarifying the standard and to add requirements that a
visual and audible alarm be provided on installations utilizing
automatically activated doors and that, for installations equipped with
sensors, monitoring of intake air ventilating battery charging stations
be done with sensors not affected by hydrogen. For clarity,
requirements for underground electrical installations to be in either
noncombustible structures or areas or to have fire suppression systems
have been put into separate paragraphs. Paragraph (a)(1) sets out the
requirements that apply when a noncombustible structure or area is used
for underground electrical installations. Similarly, paragraph (a)(2)
sets out the requirements that apply when a fire suppression system is
used. A provision has been added to proposed paragraph (a)(1)(iii) that
requires that electrical installations be equipped with a device to
activate a visual and audible alarm located outside of the enclosure on
the intake side of the installation. In addition, to maintain
consistency with proposed paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and (a)(2)(ii) of this
section, proposed paragraph (a)(1)(iii) would be revised to include the
provision that monitoring of intake air ventilating battery charging
stations be done with sensors not affected by hydrogen. Proposed
paragraph (a)(1)(iii) addresses installations which are ventilated with
intake air and equipped with sensors to monitor for heat and for carbon
monoxide or smoke for the purpose of activating and automatically
closing doors. The device would activate when the temperature reaches
165 degrees Fahrenheit or the carbon monoxide concentration reaches 10
parts per million above the ambient level for the area, or the optical
density of smoke reaches 0.05 per meter. The visual and audible alarm
required should be situated so that it can be seen or heard by persons
traveling in the intake entry immediately adjacent to the installation.
It was suggested to the Agency that these electrical installations may
be susceptible to fire and the fire could go undetected. The visual and
audible alarms would provide additional safety at these installations.
Section 75.342 Methane Monitors
Informational meetings, later discussions on the rule, and recent
experience have indicated that simply requiring methane monitors to be
maintained in permissible condition does not completely satisfy the
need for assuring proper maintenance. It was suggested that it is
necessary to have a requirement that a trained person perform
maintenance to preclude the possibility that a person with less than
the necessary understanding of the monitor and the permissibility
requirements would be assigned the task. Under the proposal, methane
monitors must be properly maintained at all times. Like the existing
rule, proposed paragraph (a)(4) would require that each methane monitor
be calibrated with a known air-methane mixture at least every 31 days.
The Agency would expect that, when necessary to maintain
permissibility, methane monitors would be calibrated more frequently.
To assure the appropriate level of maintenance, paragraph (a)(4)(i)
would require that this maintenance be done by a trained person. To
further assure the adequacy of the maintenance provided, paragraph
(a)(4)(ii) would require, similar to the previous standard, the
operator to develop and adopt a written maintenance program, a copy of
which would be made available for review by authorized representatives
of the Secretary and the representative of miners. The investigation
into the recent explosion at the No. 3 Mine, Southmountain Coal
Company, Inc., illustrates the importance of proper maintenance of
methane monitors and the need for assuring that maintenance and
calibration are being done properly. Although the Southmountain
investigation report did not conclude that the methane monitor on the
continuous mining machine was involved in the explosion, it did state
that, ``* * * the methane monitor was likely in a condition that would
not have allowed for accurate atmospheric monitoring of the area prior
to and at the time of the explosion * * *.'' Appendix H of the report
states, ``The methane monitor was not maintained as approved due to the
use of a rag in place of the sintered metal screen filter in the dust
guard. The methane monitor was not properly calibrated, as received. If
this condition existed at the time of the explosion, the methane
monitor would not have been able to accurately detect the presence of
methane.'' The Agency believes that the best way to assure that
maintenance and calibration are properly done is through a written
maintenance program with which everyone involved is familiar.
The Agency would expect that, at a minimum, the maintenance program
would include the following: (1) Checks to assure that all components
of the methane monitor are securely attached to the machine on which it
is mounted and that all packing glands are properly packed and secured;
(2) Checks to assure that the sensor head is installed as close to the
face end of the machine as practicable and that the vent holes and
filter(s) on the sensor head are not clogged with water, dust, or other
material; and (3) Checks to assure that the warning device can be seen
or heard by the machine operator at all locations from which the
machine is operated and that the lens(es) protecting the meter and
indicating lamps is not cracked or broken. The maintenance program
should also make provisions to assure that the methane monitor meter or
readout assembly is properly adjusted to indicate zero percent methane
when no methane is present and that it is not possible to defeat the
monitor by holding or blocking the machine's reset switch in the start
position. The program should also specify the procedure for assuring
that a warning is given when 1 percent methane is indicated on the
meter or readout assembly and that all motors and lights on the machine
are automatically deenergized when 2 percent methane is indicated on
the meter or readout assembly.
During informational meetings and subsequent discussions, MSHA
heard suggestions that without a requirement for a record to be
maintained of calibration tests, similar to that required by the
previous regulation, there would be no way for the Agency or miners to
verify that the tests were made. Upon reconsideration, and in light of
the Southmountain explosion investigation, MSHA agrees that records of
calibration tests would be beneficial and is therefore proposing, in
paragraph (a)(4)(iii), that a record of all calibration tests be kept
in a book maintained for this purpose on the surface at the mine. Like
other records required by this proposal, the records of methane monitor
calibration tests are to be made in a state-approved book or in a bound
book with sequential machine-numbered pages. This is being proposed to
reduce the likelihood that pages or records could be lost or misplaced.
Comments are solicited on the use of this type of recordkeeping book
and on an alternative approach wherein the Agency would develop, in
coordination with the states, books specific for the required records.
Under paragraph (a)(4)(iv) of the proposal, the records would be
required to be retained for at least 1 year at a surface location at
the mine and be made available for inspection by representative of
miners and by authorized representatives of the Secretary.
Section 75.344 Compressors
This standard specifies requirements for compressors in underground
coal mines. The proposal would revise paragraph (a)(1), redesignate
existing (b)(2) as (b)(3) and add new (b)(2) and (e).
Improperly used or maintained compressors can present a significant
risk of fire. To minimize this hazard to miners, the existing
regulation addresses the detection and suppression of compressor fires,
and specifies installation and operation requirements for compressors.
The Agency has stayed paragraph (a)(1) of Sec. 75.344 of the existing
regulation, which requires all compressors to be located in
noncombustible structures or areas. During the informational meetings,
it was brought to MSHA's attention that in some instances requiring
such a structure could present a fire hazard.
The proposal recognizes in paragraph (a)(1) that it is possible to
provide the desired level of protection by permitting compressors to be
operated while attended, rather than requiring that they be located in
noncombustible structures or areas. Commenters pointed out that
requiring all compressors, including portable compressors, to be
located in noncombustible structures or areas might result in a fire
hazard. The primary hazard identified in these instances is the buildup
of heat within the structure if sufficient ventilation for cooling is
not provided. Another hazard identified during discussions on this
section is potential delay in roof bolting during construction of a
suitable structure or area for the compressor used for bolting.
Recognizing these potential hazards, the proposal would require
compressors to be located in noncombustible structures or areas,
provided adequate ventilation is maintained for cooling or, as an
alternative, would require compressors to operate while attended. If
the compressor is operated while attended, it is the Agency's intention
that the person be able to see the compressor and recognize a problem
and is close enough to activate the required fire suppression system
and assure that the compressor is deenergized or shut off. This would
not preclude the individual from performing other duties, including
those involving the use of the compressor. However, it would require
that the individual be in close proximity to the compressor. The Agency
solicits comments on whether the standard should specify a distance and
what that appropriate distance would be. If a specific distance is
recommended, the commenters should also provide the rationale for that
distance.
Regardless of whether the compressor is located in a noncombustible
structure or area or operated while attended, existing paragraph (b)(1)
requires that the compressor, if not ventilated with air coursed
directly into a return air course or to the surface, be operated only
while it can be seen by a person designated by the operator. The
difference between proposed paragraph (a)(1), and the existing
paragraph (b)(1) would be the distance the designated person could be
from the compressor. Under proposed paragraph (a)(1) the designated
person would be required to be close enough to activate the fire
suppression system, to deenergize or shut off the compressor, and to
see the compressor. Under paragraph (b)(1), the designated person need
only be able to see the compressor.
In response to comments, the Agency is proposing paragraph (b)(2),
which provides additional flexibility for compressor installations
while maintaining the same level of protection. Proposed paragraph
(b)(2) would add an alternative that would apply to compressors located
immediately adjacent to a return air course where a substantial
pressure differential exists. This alternative would not be appropriate
for applications near working sections where low ventilation pressure
differentials exist.
Substantial pressure differentials are necessary to provide the air
velocities required to prevent smoke rollback.
Under proposed (b)(2), a compressor could be situated adjacent to a
return air course, between two permanent ventilation controls through
which an air split would be maintained from a small diameter opening in
the intake-side control to a larger diameter opening in the return-side
control. In lieu of the intake-side ventilation control, a door may be
constructed in accordance with Sec. 75.333 (d)(1) and (d)(2). Section
75.333(d)(3), which requires doors to be constructed in pairs, would
not apply in this case. The Agency intends that this door remain closed
at all times while the compressor is operating. This door would provide
easy access to the compressor. The Agency would continue the practice
of accepting as doors the fire-resistant check curtains described by
Steven J. Luzik in ``MSHA Develops New Fire-Resistant Check Curtains,''
Coal magazine, pages 102-104, June 1993. The ventilating air quantity
must be adequate to provide the essential cooling of the compressor.
The Agency expects operators to provide the air quantity necessary to
assure that the maximum ambient operating temperature specified by the
compressor's manufacturer is not exceeded. Similarly, any other
ventilating or temperature parameters specified by the manufacturer
would be considered in determining an adequate ventilating air
quantity.
In addition to an air quantity necessary to provide cooling, the
air velocity through the intake-side opening would be required to be
sufficient to prevent any air reversal or possible smoke rollback in
the event of a compressor fire. In determining sufficient air
velocities, the Agency has placed in the rulemaking record the 1977
MESA Informational Report, Ventilation to Control the Smoke From a
Fireproof Structure, (IR 1054). That report concludes that smoke
rollback should not occur if the centerline velocity through the
intake-side opening (not to exceed 16 x 24 inches) is at least 1,100
feet per minute (fpm) and the discharge opening is not smaller than the
intake opening with at least 10 feet between the ventilation controls.
The report also indicates that the intake opening should be close to
the floor and the discharge opening should be near the roof. The Agency
solicits comments on whether the velocity and associated parameters
outlined in IR 1054 are appropriate.
The proposed paragraph (b)(2) alternative also requires sensors for
heat or carbon monoxide or smoke to be installed between the two
permanent ventilation controls. The sensors would be required to
activate a visual and audible alarm located outside of the enclosure on
the intake side when either condition specified in paragraph (b)(3) (i)
or (ii) occurs. The visual alarm should be situated so that it can be
seen by persons traveling in the intake entry immediately adjacent to
the enclosure.
Paragraph (e) of the proposal has been added in response to
suggestions that compressors have an automatic shutdown feature that
deenergizes or shuts off the compressor when the required fire
suppression system is activated. The Agency recognizes that under
Sec. 75.1107-4 automatic deenergization is required if the automatic
fire suppression system is activated on unattended electrically powered
compressors. However, paragraph (e) would clarify that automatic
deenergization or shutdown is required for both attended and unattended
electric and diesel powered compressors. This paragraph also would
require the compressor to be automatically deenergized or shut off if
one or more of the doors (required by paragraph (b)(3)) close.
Historically, fires on compressors that continue to operate have
resulted in oil being released, which has contributed to the severity
of the fire. For this reason, the Agency believes that safety is best
served by requiring compressors to be automatically deenergized or shut
off when the fire suppression system is activated.
It was suggested that the cutoff for application of Sec. 75.344 be
changed from 5 horsepower for all compressors to 30 horsepower for
reciprocating compressors and 5 horsepower for all other types of
compressors. The rationale presented for this suggestion is that
reciprocating compressors of up to 30 horsepower contain about the same
amount of lubricating oil as a 5 horsepower oil-flooded rotary
compressor. This suggestion is not adopted in the proposal because the
Agency has information (Report No. 06-292-87 of the Industrial Safety
Division, Pittsburgh Safety and Health Technology Center) that the
predominant hazard for fire or explosion in reciprocating compressors
is not the lubricating oil but rather the formation of carbonaceous
deposits in the discharge system. A review of accident reports
indicated that nine mine fires started in compressors between 1970 and
1992. Two of these nine fires occurred in compressors of the type
subject to a buildup of carbonaceous deposits. Although it is not known
that this buildup was the cause of these fires and the compressors
involved were larger than 30 HP, these fires are of concern to the
Agency. The Agency solicits additional comments on the safety
considerations associated with reciprocating compressors.
Section 75.360 Preshift Examination
MSHA is proposing several modifications to the requirements in the
existing Sec. 75.360, Preshift examinations. Paragraph (e) would be
removed, existing paragraphs (f) through (h) would be redesignated as
(e) through (g), paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (f) would be revised,
and new paragraphs (b)(8) through (b)(10) would be added.
The informational meetings and later discussions on the rule
indicated some confusion over the application of preshift examination
requirements to pumpers. The questions focused on the need to preshift
examined areas of the mine where pumpers were scheduled to work or
travel. In response to these questions, the Agency has reviewed its
position on this issue and has determined that the interest of safety
is best served by permitting pumpers to perform examinations for
themselves, provided they are certified. The existing regulation
requires that areas where pumpers are assigned to work or travel be
preshift examined even if the pumper is certified. The proposal would
modify Sec. 75.360 by requiring in proposed paragraphs (a)(1) and
(a)(2) that certified pumpers perform these examinations if the area
has not been preshift examined. However, if the pumper is not
certified, the proposal would continue to require the areas where the
pumper is assigned to work or travel to be preshift examined. Paragraph
(a)(2) of the proposal would require that the pumper make a record by
or at the end of the shift of all hazardous conditions found.
As with other examinations required by this subpart, no one may
accompany the pumper during this examination. If persons other than the
certified pumper are scheduled to enter the area, a preshift
examination is required. However, pumpers may conduct supplemental
examinations in accordance with Sec. 75.361 for other persons, provided
certified pumpers: (1) have been designated by the operator to conduct
these examinations; (2) conduct these examinations within 3 hours prior
to anyone's entering the area; and (3) conduct these examinations in
areas where persons were not scheduled to work prior to the beginning
of the preshift examination. The proposal would provide at least the
same level of safety as the existing regulation because a complete
examination by a certified person would still be required and the
examination would be conducted closer to the time that miners would
actually enter the area.
Paragraph (b) is proposed for revision to address conditions to be
checked by the preshift examiner. Under the existing rule, the preshift
examiner is required to examine for hazardous conditions. The preamble
to the existing rule states the Agency's position that ``Most `hazards'
are violations of mandatory standards.'' (57 FR 20894, May 15, 1992.)
It further states that requiring a preshift examiner to look for all
violations could distract the examiner from the more important aspects
of the examination and that a district manager could require the
preshift examiner to include examination for other hazards. Upon
reconsideration, the Agency is proposing that the preshift examination
be expanded to include an examination for noncompliance with mandatory
safety or health standards that could result in a hazardous condition,
as well as other hazardous conditions. This proposal places the
examiner and the operator in a proactive rather than a reactive role
and therefore has the potential to enhance safety by identifying a
condition before a hazard exists.
Under proposed paragraph (b)(1), roadways, travelways and track
haulageways where persons are scheduled to work or travel during the
oncoming shift must be preshift examined. The proposal would clarify
that the preshift examination includes travelways in addition to
roadways and track haulageways. This is being proposed based on
comments received that the terms ``roadways'' and ``track haulageways''
specifically refer to areas where mobile powered equipment is operated.
The addition of the term travelways in the proposal would require areas
where persons are scheduled to travel on foot to also be preshift
examined since hazards may also exist in these areas. The remaining
portion of the existing paragraph has been transferred to paragraph
(b)(10).
Proposed paragraph (b)(3) would require an examination for
hazardous conditions and noncompliance with mandatory safety or health
standards that could result in a hazardous condition, tests for oxygen
deficiency and methane, and a determination if the air is moving in its
proper direction on any section that is not scheduled to operate but is
capable of producing coal by simply energizing equipment. This is in
addition to the existing requirement that these examinations and tests
be made on working sections and areas where mechanized mining equipment
is being installed or removed. It has been the Agency's position that
sections that are capable of producing coal by simply energizing
equipment should be examined in accordance with Sec. 75.361,
Supplemental examinations. However, as pointed out by commenters, a
number of fatalities have been the result of persons being sent into
areas that should have been examined but were not. Because there is a
reasonable likelihood that miners will at some point during a working
shift enter sections that are set up to mine coal, the Agency is
proposing that these sections be preshift examined.
The Agency has become aware of an opinion of a segment of the
mining community that those parts of Sec. 75.360 related to areas where
mechanized mining equipment is being installed or removed were
promulgated without the benefit of adequate comment. Although the
Agency believes that the promulgation of this standard was done
appropriately, it is being reproposed for the purposes of receiving and
giving consideration to all pertinent comments.
As stated in the preamble to the existing rule, ``The Agency has
always considered these areas to be subject to the requirements of the
preshift examination; however, an investigation following an explosion
at the William Station Mine indicated that some confusion existed on
this issue.'' (57 FR 20894, May 15, 1992.) The Agency's position on
this issue remains unchanged at this time; however, comments are
specifically solicited relative to the need to preshift examine these
areas.
Paragraph (b)(3) would also require the examination to include a
test of the roof, face and rib conditions on these sections or in these
areas. This is to clarify the Agency's position that failures of the
roof, face and rib pose a hazard to miners. It has been suggested to
the Agency that specifically requiring this examination is proactive
rather than reactive and is therefore the preferred approach. The
Agency has reconsidered its approach and agrees.
Existing paragraph (b)(4) requires that a preshift examination of
the approaches to worked-out areas along intake air courses be
conducted if intake air passes by the worked-out area to ventilate
working sections where anyone is scheduled to work during the oncoming
shift. The proposal would revise paragraph (b)(4) by also requiring
that the entries used to carry air into these worked-out areas be
preshift examined. Under the provisions of existing Sec. 75.332(a)(1),
air that ventilates a working section or an area where mechanized
mining equipment is being installed or removed must be a separate split
of intake air. Air that ventilates a worked-out area is return air and
cannot be used. The preshift examination required by proposed paragraph
(b)(4) is intended to assure that miners are not exposed to the hazards
associated with ventilating working sections with return air and that
air that enters a worked-out area in one entry does not reenter the
intake air course. Additionally, the proposal would clarify the
Agency's intent that the examination of the approaches to these worked-
out areas be made immediately inby and outby each entry used to carry
air into the worked-out area.
Paragraph (b)(6) of the proposal addresses concerns raised during
the informational meetings and later discussions on the rule that
requiring examination or rehabilitation of rooms and entries described
in paragraphs (i) and (ii) could constitute a hazard. The existing
standard requires a preshift examination of entries and rooms driven
more than 20 feet off an intake air course without a crosscut or more
than 2 crosscuts off an intake air course without permanent ventilation
controls where intake air passes through or by these entries or rooms
to a working section where anyone is scheduled to work during the
oncoming shift. It was pointed out that often these rooms and entries
have existed without incident for many years, which has allowed methane
to bleed off. The Agency also heard assertions that as written the
existing regulation may cause a diminution of safety to miners. It was
stated that certain areas have been timbered heavily and cribbed
because of adverse roof conditions and that rehabilitating such areas
would unnecessarily expose workers removing or repositioning cribs to
hazards. It was also stated that these areas are subject to roof falls
and may remain prone to roof falls and hazardous conditions even after
rehabilitation. Finally, it was stated that any advantages that come
from physical inspection of these entries or rooms are outweighed by
the danger to which the examiner may be exposed.
In light of these concerns, the Agency has proposed that rooms and
entries developed prior to November 15, 1992, need not be preshift
examined and requests additional comment as to the impact on safety.
Proposed paragraph (b)(6) requires that entries and rooms developed
after November 15, 1992, either be preshift examined or ventilated
using permanent ventilation controls.
In response to comments, the Agency is proposing in paragraph
(b)(8) that the preshift examiner check high spots along intake air
courses where methane is likely to accumulate if equipment may be
operated in the air course during the shift. It has long been
recognized by the industry that methane can accumulate in high areas
with no indication in the normal mine entry. As equipment passes under
these areas, the methane is pulled down and mixed with the air in the
entry and may be ignited by the equipment. Through proper ventilation
and examination, this hazard can be eliminated.
During informational meetings, commenters expressed concern about
the potential fire and ignition hazards associated with electrical
installations and compressors. Paragraph (b)(9) of the proposed rule
would require that electrical installations referred to in
Sec. 75.340(a), except for water pumps, and the areas where compressors
subject to Sec. 75.344 are located, be preshift examined if the
installation or compressor is or will be energized during the shift.
Pumps would be exempted because of the limited hazard presented by
pumps and because certified pumpers would conduct examinations for
themselves in accordance with paragraph (a)(2) as they entered the area
where the pump is located. The purpose of examining electrical
installations and compressors would be to assure that methane in
unacceptable concentrations is not present in these areas and that
there are no signs of fire. The Agency solicits comments on this
proposed requirement.
In addition, the proposed rule would modify existing Sec. 75.360 to
more clearly address those situations where miners are scheduled to
work or travel after the preshift examination has begun. The proposal
would amend paragraph (a), add a new paragraph (b)(10), and make a
conforming editorial change to existing Sec. 75.360(b)(1). The existing
Sec. 75.360(b)(1) requires that a preshift examination include areas
where miners are scheduled to work or travel during the oncoming shift.
The proposal reflects the fact that on occasion miners may be given
their work assignments, and thus be scheduled to work or travel in an
area, after the preshift examination has begun. This may occur, for
example, due to changing conditions in the mine. In these cases the
supplemental examination, rather than the preshift examination, would
be required. In accordance with provisions of Sec. 75.361, a certified
person must perform an examination of any area where a preshift
examination was not made before any person enters the area. To permit
these areas to be examined other than on the preshift examination
maintains the existing level of safety because a complete examination
by a certified person would be required. The examination would be
conducted closer to the time that persons will actually enter the area,
and any area where a hazardous condition exists will be posted.
Consistent with the proposed change to paragraph (b)(3) requiring a
preshift examination on any section that is not scheduled to operate
but is capable of producing coal by simply energizing equipment,
proposed paragraph (c) would require the preshift examination to
include air measurements in these areas. Adequate ventilation is the
primary means for assuring that methane does not accumulate in these
areas, and therefore it is necessary to determine that an adequate
volume of air is present. As stated previously, because there is a
reasonable likelihood that miners will enter sections that are set up
to mine coal at some point during a working shift, the Agency is
proposing that these sections be preshift examined and that this
examination include the air measurements described in proposed
paragraph (c).
Requirements for the posting of hazardous conditions found during
the preshift examination are specified in existing paragraph (e) of
Sec. 75.360. They would be transferred to Sec. 75.363. Additionally,
under the requirements of proposed Sec. 75.363(a), hazardous conditions
found by the preshift examiner or the pumper would have to be corrected
immediately. Also, if these conditions create an imminent danger,
everyone except those persons referred to in section 104(c) of The
Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (the Act) must be withdrawn
from the area affected to a safe area until the hazardous condition is
corrected. Only persons designated by the operator to correct or
evaluate the conditions would be permitted to enter the posted area.
The requirement that the hazardous condition be corrected immediately
is not intended to require correction by the preshift examiner. To do
so would delay the completion of the preshift examination. Rather, it
is intended that the condition be corrected immediately following its
reporting by the preshift examiner. Under the proposal the area would
be posted and would remain posted until the hazardous condition is
corrected.
The existing paragraph (g) that addresses the record that must be
made of the preshift examination would be redesignated as paragraph
(f). Commenters felt that the requirement left no latitude for
recording findings of the examiner other than those listed. The
preamble to the existing rule states that the reason for revising
recordkeeping requirements was to ``* * * lessen paperwork burden
without lessening the protection provided miners.'' This has not
changed. However, commenters indicated that by not permitting examiners
to record the results of their examinations, the protection afforded
miners could be lessened. In response to these comments, the Agency is
proposing to modify existing paragraph (g) by reinstating a previous
requirement that examiners record the results of the examination. This
would include hazardous conditions and their locations and the results
and locations of air and methane measurements. This is intended to
require the preshift examiner to record noncompliance with mandatory
standards that could result in a hazard and observations made during
the examination, such as changes in water levels, which, if left
unattended, could block ventilation, resulting in a hazard to miners.
The proposal would also clarify that the examiner must record the
results of methane tests in terms of the percentage of methane found,
as opposed to being characterized by terms such as ``trace.'' Recording
a percentage would provide more precise information for the reviewing
officials. The Agency solicits comments on this approach to recording
the results of preshift examinations.
Additionally, proposed paragraph (f) would require that a record be
made of the action taken to correct hazardous conditions found during
the preshift examination. Knowledge by mine management of the action
necessary to correct a hazardous condition is important for the proper
evaluation of the effectiveness of various actions. For example, if a
hazardous condition occurs repeatedly and the action taken to correct
it is the same each time, management should consider the effectiveness
of the corrective action being taken. This requirement is consistent
with recordkeeping requirements found in Sec. 75.363 and Sec. 75.364.
Following publication of the final ventilation rule in May 1992,
comments received by the Agency indicated that a change was perceived
in the requirement for ``prompt'' countersigning by the mine foreman
or, in the absence of the mine foreman, by the person designated to
perform the duties of the mine foreman. The final rule did not include
the previous requirement that the mine foreman must countersign the
report ``promptly.'' Although no change was intended by the Agency,
MSHA is proposing in paragraph (f) that the preshift examination report
be countersigned by the mine foreman by the end of the mine foreman's
next scheduled working shift. The Agency intends that the mine foreman,
the person most responsible for the day-to-day operation of the mine,
be notified of the information contained in the reports. Allowing until
the end of the mine foreman's next regularly scheduled working shift to
countersign the report would assure that the mine foreman is aware of
the results of all preshift examinations and can implement necessary
corrective actions in a timely manner.
The proposal would also require that within two scheduled
production days after the mine foreman has countersigned, the record of
the examination be countersigned by the mine superintendent, mine
manager, or other mine official to whom the mine foreman is directly
accountable. This would be similar to the requirement of the previous
regulation that the superintendent countersign records of the preshift
examination. The preamble to the existing standard discusses removing
the countersigning requirement by the superintendent on the basis that
the superintendent, in many cases, is not a certified person and the
mine foreman is given responsibility for countersigning because the
mine foreman is the person most knowledgeable of the day-to-day
operation of the mine. Countersigning by the mine foreman was retained.
However, as indicated during informational meetings and subsequent
discussion, the mine foreman is not necessarily the person in a
position to redirect resources to address the safety concern. After
reconsidering the existing language, the Agency is proposing to require
countersigning by the mine foreman and by the superintendent, mine
manager, or other official to whom the mine foreman is accountable, to
assure that a higher level official, empowered to redirect resources,
is aware of any condition requiring corrective actions. Since this
second level official may not be physically located at the mine on a
full-time basis, a period of two scheduled production days is proposed
as a reasonable period of time for countersigning. The Agency solicits
comments on this approach to countersigning the report of the preshift
examination.
The proposal would require that the record be made in a state-
approved book or in a bound book with sequential machine-numbered
pages. Comments are solicited on this approach and on an alternative
approach wherein the Agency would develop, in coordination with the
states, books specific for the required records.
Identical provisions to those proposed in paragraph (f) of
Sec. 75.360 for countersigning records and for keeping the records in a
state-approved book or in a bound book with sequential machine-numbered
pages appear in Sec. 75.363(c) and Sec. 75.364(h).
Section 75.362 On-shift Examination
MSHA is proposing to redesignate existing (d)(1)(i) and (ii) as
(d)(1)(ii) and (iii), revise paragraphs (a)(1), (c)(1), (d)(1)(iii) and
(d)(2), remove paragraph (a)(2), and add new paragraph (a)(2) and
(d)(1)(i). MSHA also proposes to transfer the paragraphs (g) and (h)
recordkeeping and retention requirements to Sec. 75.363, Hazardous
conditions, posting, correcting, and recording, and add a new paragraph
(g).
Paragraph (a) would be modified in paragraph (a)(1) to require a
certified person to conduct an on-shift examination of a section during
any shift when anyone is assigned to work on the section and where
mechanized mining equipment is being installed or removed. The existing
rule requires that an on-shift examination be performed only on
sections where coal is produced and where mechanized mining equipment
is being installed or removed. The Agency agrees with comments received
during informational meetings that many of the same hazards can exist
for persons working on a section, regardless of whether coal is being
produced. For example, many times miners are assigned to perform
maintenance work on a section when no production is scheduled. This
maintenance work can involve disabled equipment that cannot be moved
from the face area or from an area near a pillar line. In these
situations, hazards can be equivalent to those encountered by miners
during normal coal-producing operations or similar operations on the
section.
The Agency proposes to revise paragraph (a) to incorporate the word
``on-shift'' in the first sentence of the paragraph. The word ``on-
shift'' was inserted for clarification and consistency with other
paragraphs of Sec. 75.362. The Agency is also proposing to revise
paragraph (a)(1) to clarify that sufficient on-shift examinations be
conducted to assure safety. It was suggested to the Agency that MSHA
should include language to require more than one examination if
necessary for safety, as provided for in the previous standard. The
Agency is adopting this approach and is proposing that at least once
during each shift, or more often if necessary for safety, a certified
person designated by the operator would be required to conduct an on-
shift examination of each section where anyone is assigned to work
during the shift and any area where mechanized mining equipment is
being installed or removed during the shift.
The Agency has become aware of an opinion of a segment of the
mining community that language in paragraphs (a)(1), (c)(1) and (c)(2)
requiring an on-shift examination of areas where mechanized mining
equipment is being installed or removed was promulgated without the
benefit of adequate comment. Although the Agency believes that the
promulgation of this standard was done appropriately, these paragraphs
are being reproposed for the purposes of receiving and giving
consideration to all pertinent comments. The word ``working'' is
removed from (c)(1) to assure the application of the standard would
extend to all sections.
The Agency has determined that a specific examination requirement
should be added to assure compliance with the respirable dust control
parameters designated in the mine ventilation plan. Assuring full
compliance with these parameters is important in safeguarding the
health of the miners. Agency experience shows that needed attention has
not always been given to the required respirable dust control
parameters. Citations issued by the Agency during a special spot
inspection program, undertaken in 1991 at the request of MSHA's Coal
Mine Respirable Dust Task Group, in which Agency inspectors conducted
several checks of the dust control parameters during the course of each
sampling shift, revealed that 21 percent of the 781 mining units
sampled were not complying with one or more of the parameters. In its
1992 report, the Agency's Task Group recommended that MSHA ``* * *
require coal mine operators to make periodic on-shift examinations to
verify that the ventilation plan parameters are in place and
functioning as intended'' (p. 47). The Agency agrees and considers on-
shift examinations of dust control parameters an important part of
reasonable and prudent dust control strategy.
Thus the proposal, in paragraph (a)(2), would add a new on-shift
examination requirement to address respirable dust control. Under the
proposal, at or near the beginning of any shift before coal production
begins on a section, a certified person designated by the operator
would conduct an examination for compliance with the dust control
parameters established in the mine ventilation plan. Corrective actions
to assure compliance would be required to begin immediately. The
proposed examination would include measurements for compliance with
required water pressures and flow rates, number and orientation of
water sprays, air quantities and velocities, section ventilation setup
and control device placement, and any other dust control parameter
required in the ventilation plan.
Several methods of measuring water spray pressures would be
acceptable. For example, water flow and pressure can be monitored
through the installation of an in-line water meter and a pressure
transducer. Water pressure can also be measured by permanently
installing a pressure gauge on a machine. Operators would determine the
working relationship between the pressure gauge reading and the actual
operating pressure at the sprays. Once the working relationship has
been established, the gauge pressure could be used to indicate the
actual spray pressure specified in the ventilation plan for a given
number of operating sprays.
Measurement of any required water flow rate could be accomplished
through the installation of a flowmeter. A flowmeter provides a direct
and reliable measurement and is the preferred method of determining
water flow rate. Another acceptable method of determining flow rate
would be to establish the relationship between the water pressure and
the spray orifice diameter, either through engineering data or through
actual tests. Once established, the water pressure gauge reading could
be used to reliably indicate a flow rate for a specific number of
sprays at a given orifice size.
The proposed requirement would specify that the number of water
sprays and their orientation be included in the examination. While
spray orientation is important in air-directing spray systems such as
sprayfans and shearer-clearers, the Agency does not intend that precise
angles be determined during each examination by the use of engineering
instruments. Rather, the correct direction and orientation of the
sprays would be determined by comparison with the requirements of the
ventilation plan.
The proposed requirement would also specify that the section
ventilation setup and control device placement be examined for
compliance with the ventilation plan. Information concerning section
ventilation systems is currently required to be contained in the
ventilation plan through Sec. 75.371(f). Any other respirable dust
control parameters specified in the approved ventilation plan would be
included in the examination under the proposal. An example could be the
cleaning and maintenance procedures for a wet bed scrubber installed on
a continuous mining machine.
Given the importance of and the need for continually maintaining
compliance with the dust control parameters to assure dust control,
dilution and removal, an effective system of continuous monitoring of
the performance and condition of the dust control parameters is
desirable. The Agency is aware that through advances in technology it
may be feasible to monitor air quantity and velocity, and spray water
flow rate and pressure. Continuous monitoring offers the potential to
further improve miner protection by providing real-time data on the
performance and condition of the dust control parameters. This
information can be used to give early warnings of deteriorating dust
control conditions which can be corrected before the dust control
system operates below the accepted standard. Although the application
of continuous monitoring will eliminate the need for periodic physical
measurements of key dust control parameters, visual observation will be
necessary to verify compliance with other ventilation plan parameters.
Among these are the number and location of operating water sprays,
their general condition and orientation, the section ventilation setup
and control device placement, and other control measures where
performance and operating condition can only be assessed visually.
Although the proposal includes continuous monitoring as an option,
the Agency is considering requiring the use of this technology at some
later date when it becomes available. Comments are solicited on this
approach. Specifically, comments are solicited on the parameters that
lend themselves to continuous monitoring, the need for performance
standards for monitoring devices, levels of detection, accuracy and
precision requirements for monitoring devices, the need for alarms and/
or warning signals when parameters monitored are outside of specified
tolerances, and the polling frequency necessary to provide monitoring
that is substantially continuous.
Paragraph (c)(1) would be modified to remove the word ``working''
modifying the word ``section'' in the current rule. The reason for this
proposed change is to achieve consistency between paragraphs (a) and
(c). Many of the activities to which persons are assigned would be on
sections not normally thought of as working sections, since the term
``working section'' is often associated with coal production. For
purposes of Sec. 75.362, a section in the mine is considered to be the
area inby the loading point, or the proposed loading point in the case
of the installation of equipment, or the location of the last
established loading point in the case of the removal of mechanized
mining equipment. The certified person conducting the examination would
examine the section in much the same way as it would be examined during
a coal producing shift, including checking for hazardous conditions,
testing for methane and oxygen deficiency, and determining if the air
is moving in its proper direction.
Paragraph (c) would require certified persons conducting on-shift
examinations to take the air measurements at the same locations where
air measurements are required during the preshift examination. This
would include areas where mechanized mining equipment, including
longwall or shortwall mining equipment, is being installed or removed.
This provides an additional check of the mine's ventilation system and
verifies that ventilation changes in the mine during the production
process have not occurred. Reduced volume or velocity of air during the
shift can contribute to increased levels of respirable dust and the
occurrence of methane accumulations or oxygen-deficient atmospheres.
The proposal includes an additional requirement under paragraph
(d)(1). The new item appears as (i) while former (i) and (ii) are
redesignated as (ii) and (iii). Paragraph (i) would require that at the
start of each shift an examination for methane be conducted at each
working place before electrically operated equipment is energized on
the section. Under the proposal, at the beginning of each shift, a
methane examination would be conducted at each working place prior to
energizing equipment. The provision would assure that the working
places on the section are examined and determined to be safe before
electrically operated equipment on the section is energized and normal
work activities commence. The operation of electrically powered
equipment is a recognized potential methane ignition source. The
proposed rule would reduce the likelihood of ignition by requiring an
examination for methane before this equipment is energized.
The Agency is also proposing to revise paragraph (d)(1)(iii) to
require methane tests more often than at the current 20-minute
intervals at specific locations during the operation of equipment in
the working place when required in the approved ventilation plan.
Commenters have expressed a concern that some mines, because of the
methane liberation at the face during mining operations, need
additional methane tests for safety. MSHA agrees and is proposing to
reinsert language similar to that in the previous standard that would
require that when necessary for safety, more frequent tests are to be
made. It should be noted that the methane monitor installed as required
by Sec. 75.342, Methane monitors, has never been accepted as a means
for satisfying the test requirements of this section, and likewise
would not be accepted under the proposed rule.
It is proposed to modify paragraph (d)(2) to require that methane
tests be made at the face of each working place using extendable probes
or other acceptable means. The existing standard requires that these
tests be made at the last row of permanent roof support, unless tests
are required to be made closer to the working face using extendable
probes. The previous standard, like the proposal, required these tests
to be made at the face. However, it should be noted that it was a
common practice at one time for miners to set temporary support in
order to proceed inby permanent support to make methane tests. Given
the hazards associated with advancing inby permanent support for any
reason, the Agency prohibited this practice in the mid 1980's. The use
of probes would permit methane tests at the face while continuing the
Agency's policy of prohibiting a person going inby the last permanent
roof support to conduct a methane test. Comments received during
informational meetings with the mining community stressed the need for
methane tests to be conducted at the face during any mining operation.
MSHA agrees that proper testing for methane at the face is essential
for safe mining operations. Commenters questioned whether methane tests
were being conducted adequately during deep cut operations. Some of the
extended cuts currently being taken are up to 40 feet inby the last row
of permanent roof supports. However, the Agency knows of no
commercially available probe greater than 30 feet in length. In
proposing the use of extendable probes or other acceptable means to
test for methane during deep cut operations, MSHA realizes that the
provision is technology forcing. By requiring methane tests at the face
without having miners go inby the last row of permanent roof support,
it is the intent of the Agency to achieve the maximum safety feasible.
It is not the intent of the Agency to prohibit extended or deep cuts
that are consistent with technologically feasible safe mining
practices. In the interim, the Agency is soliciting comments on
alternative compliance measures that could be acceptable in lieu of an
extendable probe. The other changes proposed in paragraph (d)(2)
clarify the location and frequency of the methane tests.
The proposal would transfer the existing recordkeeping and
retention requirements under paragraphs (g) and (h) to Sec. 75.363
Hazardous conditions, posting, correcting, and recording, and add a
certification requirement under a new paragraph (g). The Agency
received comments that without certification, no mechanism would exist
to verify that examinations were conducted in belt conveyor entries. In
response to these comments, proposed paragraph (g) would require,
similar to a requirement of the previous standard, the on-shift
examiner to certify by initials, date, and time that the belt conveyor
entry was examined. The examiner would make this certification at a
sufficient number of locations to indicate that the entire belt
conveyor entry has been examined. This certification process is a
common practice in the industry and is required by several state
regulations.
Section 75.363 Hazardous Conditions; Posting, Correcting, and
Recording
Section 75.363 is a new provision included in the proposal in
response to comments received by the Agency. The commenters stressed
the importance of recording all hazardous conditions and questioned
whether the existing standards require such a record in all cases. The
Agency agrees that recording all hazardous conditions will result in a
safety benefit by assuring notification of the mine foremen and
certified persons who may be required to enter the areas to conduct the
examinations. This would enable the examiner to double-check, during
subsequent examinations, the areas where problems have occurred. The
proposal would not require a record to be made for those shifts during
which no hazardous conditions were found.
Proposed Sec. 75.363 is intended to apply to all hazardous
conditions except for the recording of hazardous conditions discovered
during preshift and weekly examinations governed by Secs. 75.360 and
75.364, respectively and the action taken to correct these conditions.
Section 75.363 would also apply to hazardous conditions found during
the supplemental examination, examinations conducted by pumpers for
themselves, and the on-shift examination, as well as any other
hazardous condition. The proposal recognizes that the existing rule
already requires the recording of hazardous conditions found during
preshift and weekly examinations. Records completed in accordance with
Secs. 75.360 or 75.364 need not be duplicated in the Sec. 75.363
records. The Agency believes that records of hazardous conditions
discovered during these examinations would be more appropriately kept
in the books maintained exclusively for those examination results and
that no purpose would be served by duplicating those records.
Paragraph (a) would require any area where a hazardous condition is
found by or reported to the mine foreman, assistants to the mine
foreman, or other certified persons designated by the operator to make
examinations, to be posted against entry with a conspicuous danger
sign. The danger sign would be placed at a location where anyone
entering the area of the hazardous condition would pass so that persons
approaching the area would be expected to see the danger sign. The
posting of areas where hazardous conditions exist to alert persons is
an accepted safety practice in the mining community. The area would
remain posted until the hazardous conditions are corrected. As with the
existing requirement in Sec. 75.364, Weekly examination, paragraph (a)
of the proposal would require that hazardous conditions be corrected
immediately and that only persons designated by the operator to correct
or evaluate the condition may enter a posted area. Additionally, if the
hazardous condition creates an imminent danger, everyone must be
withdrawn from the affected area to a safe area until the condition is
corrected. Persons referred to in section 104(c) of the Act are
permitted to remain in the area.
Paragraph (b) of the proposal would require that once a hazardous
condition is found, a record would be required to be kept in a book
maintained for this purpose on the surface at the mine. A description
of the hazardous condition, its location, and actions taken to correct
the condition would be recorded. So as to make the information
concerning hazardous conditions available to oncoming shifts, the
proposal would require the record to be entered in the book by or at
the end of the shift in which the hazardous condition was discovered.
As explained in the preamble to the existing rule, commenters stated
that a record of all hazards found during the examination is necessary
to enable the examiner to double-check, during subsequent examinations,
areas where problems have occurred. The Agency agrees with this
position and therefore, consistent with the requirements of
Sec. 75.360, is proposing in paragraph (b) that a record be made of any
hazardous condition found by or reported to the mine foreman,
assistants to the mine foreman, or other certified person designated by
the operator to conduct examinations under this subpart D.
Additionally, knowledge by mine management of the action necessary to
correct a hazardous condition is important for the proper evaluation of
the effectiveness of various actions. For example, if a hazardous
condition occurs repeatedly and the action taken to correct it is the
same each time, management should reevaluate the effectiveness of the
corrective action being taken. Therefore, the Agency is proposing in
paragraph (b) that the record also include the action required to
correct the hazardous condition. Paragraph (b) would not require a
record of hazardous conditions found during preshift or weekly
examinations, since the proposed regulations at Secs. 75.360(f) and
75.364(h) would require records of hazardous conditions found during
these examinations.
To assure the accuracy and completeness of the record, paragraph
(c) of the proposal would require that the record be made either by the
certified person or by a person designated by the operator. As with
other records required by this subpart, when the record is made by a
designated person other than the certified person making the
examination, the person making the record need not be certified. If the
record is made by a person designated by the operator, the certified
person would be required to verify the record by initials and date.
Paragraph (c) of Sec. 75.363 would also include provisions identical to
those proposed in paragraph (f) of Sec. 75.360 and paragraph (h) of
Sec. 75.364 for countersigning records and for keeping the records in a
state-approved book or in a bound book with sequential machine-numbered
pages. As discussed above under the section-by-section discussion for
Sec. 75.360(f), the requirements for countersigning would increase
safety, particularly through increasing the awareness of the
appropriate mine officials of the hazardous conditions requiring
correction.
Consistent with the requirements for the retention of records in
the existing rule, paragraph (d) of the proposal would require the
record to be retained for at least 1 year at a surface location at the
mine and be made available for inspection by the representative of the
miners and by authorized representatives of the Secretary. Records of
examinations provide the operator and other interested parties with a
history of the types of problems discovered and changes in the
ventilation system that have occurred. In the opinion of the Agency, a
1-year retention period is sufficient to satisfy this need.
Section 75.364 Weekly Examination
MSHA proposes to revise paragraphs (a), (b) and (h) of existing
Sec. 75.364. Paragraph (a) of the proposal would modify the
requirements addressing the measurements to be made during the weekly
examination to evaluate the effectiveness of bleeder systems and the
ventilation of worked-out areas.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1) would require that in addition to
measuring the methane and oxygen concentrations and determining if the
air is moving in its proper direction in worked-out areas where no
pillars have been recovered, the examiner would measure the air
quantity where the air enters and leaves the worked-out area. Paragraph
(a)(1) would also clarify that sufficient oxygen and methane
measurements be made to assure adequate air quality. Commenters
suggested, and the Agency agrees, that all of these measurements,
including quantity and quality, are essential to the proper evaluation
of the ventilation of the worked-out area.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2) would require that air quantity
measurements be made at specific locations in bleeder entries. These
locations include: where air enters the worked-out area, paragraph
(a)(2)(i); where air leaves the worked-out area, paragraph (a)(2)(ii);
and, locations specified in the mine ventilation plan to determine the
effectiveness of the bleeder system, paragraph (a)(2)(iii). The
proposed measurement of air quantity, as with the currently required
measurement of methane and oxygen and determination that air is
traveling in its proper direction, is essential to the proper
evaluation of the effectiveness of a bleeder system.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(iv) is intended to provide a mechanism
for evaluating the effectiveness of bleeder systems without traveling
the bleeder entries in their entirety. It is anticipated that this
alternative will be utilized in those cases when travel is not possible
or when it is not safe to travel the bleeder entries in their entirety.
When elected, the method proposed for evaluation would be required to
provide proper evaluation of the effectiveness of the bleeder system.
The following discussion is intended to address comments received
relative to weekly examinations for hazardous conditions to the area of
deepest penetration in rooms where no pillars have been recovered.
It is a common practice in the mining industry to develop rooms off
of a set of advancing entries with the return-side rooms being mined on
the advance and intake-side rooms being mined on retreat. Once each set
of rooms is developed to the projected depth, mining is considered
completed in that specific area. As each set of rooms is advanced,
connections are normally made between the previously developed rooms
and the set of rooms being advanced. The rooms are usually connected by
crosscuts at the point of deepest penetration. Work in these rooms is
discontinued as each set of rooms is completed, creating a worked-out
area.
Commenters have raised questions concerning the extent of the
examination required in these sets of rooms once they are completed.
Also, comments have suggested that in this mining scenario, the area
may not be considered worked out until the final set of intake-side
rooms is completed.
The Agency considers rooms and sets of rooms where mining is
completed to be worked-out areas. Therefore, a weekly examination for
hazardous conditions by traveling to the area of deepest penetration of
the rooms or set of rooms is required. The required examination
includes measurements of oxygen and methane concentrations and tests to
determine if the air is moving in its proper direction.
If the rooms are connected from the first set of return rooms to
the point of deepest penetration of the return rooms with no barriers
providing separation, and similarly connected on the intake side,
travel around the periphery of the rooms to the area of deepest
penetration and conducting the required air and methane tests will
satisfy the requirements of the section.
As provided in existing Sec. 75.364(a)(1), an alternate method
which provides effective evaluation of the area may be approved in the
ventilation plan. However, approval of an alternate method in lieu of
examination at the points of deepest penetration within a developed
area would be unlikely unless the area were penetrated and ventilated
by shafts, bleeder entries, or some other effective method of
adequately evaluating ventilation of the area. Comments are
specifically solicited on the issues discussed.
It has been suggested to the Agency that the requirement to
evaluate the effectiveness of bleeder systems under paragraph
(a)(2)(iii) can be satisfied by simply traveling the bleeder entries.
Since the purpose of traveling bleeder entries is to evaluate the
effectiveness of the bleeder system, this cannot be accomplished by
simply traveling the entries. It is inherent in the requirement that
the entries be traveled that the examiner periodically stop at critical
locations to make such tests and measurements as may be necessary to
determine that the bleeder system is working effectively. It would
serve no purpose to require that the entries be traveled without an
evaluation of the system's effectiveness. Although the Agency believes
that the rule accurately reflects this intent and is not proposing to
change the standard at this time, comments are solicited on this issue.
Specifically, the comments should address the need for specifying where
tests and measurements should be made, the nature of these tests and
measurements, and whether this information should be included in the
ventilation plan.
Paragraph (b) is proposed for revision to address conditions to be
checked by the weekly examiner. Under the existing rule, the weekly
examiner is required to examine for hazardous conditions. The preamble
to the existing rule states the Agency's position that ``Most 'hazards'
are violations of mandatory standards.'' As with the preshift examiner,
requiring the weekly examiner to look for all violations could distract
the examiner from the more important aspects of the examination.
Nonetheless, the Agency feels there is merit in placing the examiner
and the operator in a proactive rather than a reactive role in terms of
identifying hazards. Consistent with proposed Sec. 75.360(b), the
Agency is proposing that, similar to the previous standard, the weekly
examination include an examination for hazardous conditions as well as
noncompliance with mandatory safety or health standards that could
result in a hazardous condition. The preamble to the existing rule
states the Agency's position that ``* * * most hazardous conditions in
a mine would result from a violation of a safety or health standard.''
(57 FR 20897, May 15, 1992.) It further states that requiring the
examiner to look for all violations could distract the examiner from
the more important aspects of the examination . Upon reconsideration,
the Agency is proposing that the weekly examination be expanded to
include an examination for noncompliance with mandatory safety or
health standards that could result in a hazardous condition, as well as
other hazardous conditions. This proposal places the examiner and the
operator in a proactive rather than a reactive role and therefore has
the potential to enhance safety by identifying a condition before a
hazard exists.
Paragraph (h) of the proposal would require that a record be made
of the results of the weekly examination, including the results of air
and methane measurements, either by the certified person or by a person
designated by the operator. The proposal clarifies that the results of
methane tests would be recorded as the percentage of methane measured
by the examiner, as opposed to being characterized by terms such as
``trace.'' Recording a percentage would provide more precise
information for the reviewing officials. If the record is made by a
person designated by the operator, the certified person would be
required to verify the record by initials and date by or at the end of
the shift for which the examination was made. Paragraph (h) of
Sec. 75.364 would also include provisions identical to those proposed
in paragraph (f) of Sec. 75.360 and paragraph (c) of Sec. 75.363 for
countersigning records and for keeping the records in a state-approved
book or in a bound book with sequential machine-numbered pages. As
discussed above under the section-by-section discussion for Sec. 75.360
(f), the requirements for countersigning would increase safety,
particularly through increasing the awareness of the appropriate mine
officials of the hazardous conditions requiring correction.
Section 75.370 Mine Ventilation Plan; Submission and Approval
MSHA is proposing to revise portions of Sec. 75.370 to address
comments received relative to the role of the representative of the
miners in the ventilation plan approval process. Paragraph (a) would be
revised by the proposal, paragraphs (b) and (e) would be revised and
redesignated as paragraphs (c) and (f), a new paragraph (b) would be
added, and other paragraphs would be redesignated as appropriate.
One comment received was that the miners who work under the plan
are often in the best position to know the effect of proposed
revisions. The Agency has consistently recognized the importance of
input from the miners' representative in all aspects of the plan-
approval process. This is clear in the preamble to the existing
standard, which states:
MSHA agrees with commenters that miners have a stake in the
implementation of the ventilation plan at each mine. Recognizing
this role and the importance of mine plans to an effective safety
and health program, commenters noted that many operators provide
miners with a copy of the proposed plan before it is submitted to
MSHA for approval. The commenters also noted that some existing wage
and hour agreements in the industry address this issue, and under
these contracts miners have the right to review plan provisions
before they are submitted to MSHA. Also, MSHA district managers meet
with miners' representatives to discuss plan provisions upon request
and have accepted written material the miners would like MSHA to
consider while the plan is being reviewed. Related to this issue,
miners have the right under Sec. 103(g) of the Act to request an
inspection by MSHA of any alleged hazardous condition in the mine.
Under the final rule, these practices and procedures will continue
to involve miners' representatives in the development of meaningful
and effective plans.
MSHA recognizes that the operator has the legal responsibility for
developing a ventilation plan. In that context, the Agency has
reconsidered whether the role of the miners' representative in the
plan-approval process should be formalized in this rule. To clarify the
intent of the Agency and to assure that the miners' representative has
an opportunity to comment on each proposed ventilation plan and
revision submitted, the Agency is proposing several changes to the
existing standard. As discussed in more detail below, the basic
approach proposed is for the miners' representative to be given the
opportunity to review proposed ventilation plans and revisions and
submit comments to MSHA. MSHA would review the plan and consider all
timely comments received in making its determination to approve or
disapprove a proposed plan.
Paragraph (a)(3)(i) of the proposal would require that at the time
of submittal of a ventilation plan or a revision to an existing
ventilation plan to the Agency by the operator, the operator would also
be required to provide a copy of the plan or revision to the
representative of miners. This requirement is intended to assure that
the miners and their representative are promptly made aware of what is
being submitted and are afforded time to comment. Additionally, the
proposal would continue to require in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) that a copy
of the proposed plan or any proposed revisions be made available for
inspection by the representative of the miners. Although this proposal
may appear superfluous in light of the proposed requirement in
paragraph (a)(3)(i), it is the Agency's opinion that the review process
and the submittal of comments in a timely manner are facilitated by
requiring that the proposed plan or revision be made available for
inspection by the representative of miners as well as providing the
representative with a copy. Further, in those instances where a
representative of miners has not been designated, it is necessary that
miners have a copy of the plan available for inspection.
Paragraph (a)(3)(iii) of the proposal retains the existing
requirement that copies of the proposed plan and proposed revisions be
posted on the mine bulletin board and clarifies that posting is
required at the time of submittal. The Agency believes that the posting
requirement is necessary to assure that all miners at a mine will have
the opportunity to review the proposed plan or revision and provide
input during the review process. The Agency solicits comments on this
approach to providing miners with information relative to proposed
ventilation plans and revisions.
Paragraph (b) of the proposal specifies the means by which the
representative of miners would have input to the review process. Under
the proposal, the representative of miners may submit comments on the
proposed plan or revision to the district manager for consideration.
Recognizing that in some instances a decision relative to the approval
or denial of a revision must be made in a short timeframe, the proposal
would require that comments be made in a timely manner. The Agency does
not define ``timely manner'' but would construe it to be a period of
time that would not delay the approval process. Recognizing the
importance of miners' input, the district manager will continue to be
available to discuss with the representative of miners all aspects of
the plan as they affect miners' health and safety following approval or
denial of a proposed plan or revision. MSHA solicits comments on this
approach.
Paragraph (c)(1) of the proposed standard would continue the
requirement of the existing regulation that the district manager notify
the operator in writing of the approval or denial of a proposed plan or
proposed revision. Additionally, it is proposed in paragraph (c)(1)
that a copy of this notification be sent by the district manager to the
representative of miners. This approach is being proposed to assure
that the representative of miners is kept informed of the progress of
the plan approval from submission to final action.
In order to assure that the miners themselves, as well as the
representative of miners, are aware of the provisions of the
ventilation plan once it is approved, the proposal under paragraph
(f)(1) would require that the operator provide the representative of
miners with a copy of the plan or revision following notification of
approval. Also, the proposal would continue in paragraphs (f)(2) and
(f)(3) the existing requirements that the approved plan or revision be
made available for inspection by the representative of miners and be
posted on the mine bulletin board. Under a new requirement in proposed
paragraph (f)(3), an approved plan or revision would be required to be
posted within 1 working day of notification of the approval and would
remain posted for the entire period that the plan is in effect.
Section 75.371 Mine Ventilation Plan; Contents
The Agency proposes to revise paragraphs (b), (s), (z) and (bb) and
to repropose paragraph (r) of this standard.
The proposal would revise existing paragraph (b) to add language
that reflects the proposed changes in paragraphs (c) and (d) of
Sec. 75.312 allowing alternative testing methods for main mine fan
automatic closing doors and fan signals. Paragraphs (c) and (d) of
Sec. 75.312 would require that an operator wishing to use an
alternative method to stopping the main mine fan have the alternative
method approved in the ventilation plan.
MSHA proposes to revise paragraph (s) to conform to proposed
Sec. 75.362(d)(1)(iii). The proposal would delete the portion of
existing Sec. 75.362(d)(2) requiring, in the approved ventilation plan,
the location of tests which are to be made closer to the working face
than the last permanent roof supports using extendable probes or other
acceptable means. Proposed (d)(1)(iii) would require that the
ventilation plan specify the frequency of the methane tests if required
more often than 20 minutes by Sec. 75.362(d)(1)(iii). It would also
require that the ventilation plan specify the location of these tests;
e.g., ``in the working places on section MMU No. 123,'' or in ``the
working places off first right off of east mains.''
MSHA proposes to revise paragraph (z) to conform to proposed
Sec. 75.364(a). Paragraph (a) of the proposed Sec. 75.364 would modify
the requirements addressing the measurements to be made to evaluate the
effectiveness of bleeder systems and the ventilation of worked-out
areas during the weekly examination. The measurement of air quantity,
as well as the other measurements required by the existing standard,
are essential to the proper evaluation of the ventilation of the
worked-out area and the effectiveness of bleeder systems. It is
proposed that the locations where these measurements will be made or
alternative methods of providing these evaluations be included in the
ventilation plan.
Existing paragraph (bb) requires that the location of ventilating
devices used to control air movement through worked-out areas be
included in the ventilation plan. The proposal would add a requirement
contained in the previous regulation, that the location and sequence of
construction of proposed seals also be indicated. Improper sequencing
of seal construction can have a deleterious effect on mine air quality,
and therefore the location and sequence of construction of these seals
should be reviewed and approved as a part of the ventilation plan.
Although the Agency believes that the promulgation of paragraph (r)
of this standard was done appropriately, it is being reproposed for the
purposes of receiving and giving consideration to all pertinent
comments. Section 75.325(d), as reproposed, would require that areas
where mechanized mining equipment, including longwall equipment, is
being installed and removed be ventilated. Paragraph (r) of Sec. 75.371
would require that the quantity of air that will be provided be
included in the ventilation plan.
Section 75.372 Mine Ventilation Map
The proposed paragraph (b)(3) would revise existing
Sec. 75.372(b)(3) to assure that all known adjacent workings are shown
on the mine map, regardless of whether they are located on mine
property or on adjacent property. It would do so by deleting the phrase
``on mine property'' from the existing standard. In response to
comments received, the Agency has concluded that it would be
inappropriate to exclude from the mine ventilation map all known
workings located in the same coalbed within 1,000 feet of existing or
projected workings simply because they are not located on the mine
property. Safety benefits associated with the knowledge of nearby mine
workings accrue, even when the nearby workings are not on the mine
property. The Agency also notes that this revision would be consistent
with existing paragraph (h) of Sec. 75.1200, Mine map. Paragraph (h) of
Sec. 75.1200 requires that the mine map show all adjacent mine workings
within 1,000 feet. Like the previous standard, this revision would
assure that all adjacent mine workings appear on the Sec. 75.372 map in
those cases where operators do not use a Sec. 75.1200 map for their
required submission.
In response to comments, the proposed paragraph (b)(19) would
reinstate the requirement in the previous standard that the mine map
include the entry height, velocity and direction of the air current at
or near the midpoint of each belt flight where the height and width of
the entry are representative of the belt haulage entry. The belt entry
is required to be examined in accordance with subpart D. The proposal
would assist the examiner in rapidly determining whether the air is
flowing in its normal velocity and direction.
As explained in the discussion of proposed Sec. 75.301, instances
have developed where operators take air from an intake air course to
ventilate shops, electrical installations, or for other purposes, and
this air is then coursed to the surface and is not used to ventilate
working places. Under one interpretation of the existing definition,
because this air has not ventilated a working place or a worked-out
area, the air course cannot be considered a return air course. In these
instances, the proposal would expressly permit the redesignation of the
affected portion of the air course as a return. Because it is important
that personnel, including examiners, the miners' representative, and
representatives of the Secretary, know which air courses have been
redesignated, the proposal would require that they be shown on the map.
The proposed paragraph (b)(20) would require that the designation and
location of air courses that have been redesignated from intake to
return for the purpose of ventilation of structures, areas or
installations that are required by this subpart D to be ventilated to
return air courses, and for ventilation of seals, be shown on the map.
Section 75.380 Escapeways; Bituminous and Lignite Mines
This section would revise paragraph (f) and portions of paragraphs
(d) and (i) and repropose paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2).
Under the proposal, Sec. 75.380(d)(3) would provide that in areas
of mines where escapeways pass through doors or in areas of mines
developed before November 16, 1992, where escapeways pass across or
under overcasts or undercasts, the height of the escapeway may be less
than 5 feet provided the height is sufficient to enable miners,
including disabled persons, to escape quickly in an emergency
situation. It was brought to the attention of the Agency that in some
instances the removal of roof support or the lowering of the tops of
overcasts may be necessary to provide the 5-foot height required by the
existing rule. It has been suggested that this could, in and of itself,
result in a diminution of safety. Historically, the dimensions of
escapeways were addressed through criteria. Some mine operators have
requested and received approval for lesser dimensions than that in
criteria based on a performance test referred to as a ``stretcher
test.'' Under this test, 4 persons are required to carry a person on a
stretcher through the area in question to demonstrate that the lesser
dimension would not delay escape. The Agency would expect that when
there is a need to determine whether sufficient height is provided, the
stretcher test discussed above would be applied. Since the goal of the
standard is to assure that the escape of miners is not impeded, the
demonstration that there would be no delay assures that there is no
reduction in safety when the proposed standard is compared to the
existing standard.
It was also suggested to the Agency that where escapeways developed
on or after November 16, 1992, (the effective date of the existing
rule) pass across or under overcasts or undercasts, the height of the
escapeway should be permitted to be less than 5 feet provided the
height is sufficient to enable miners, including disabled persons, to
escape quickly in an emergency situation. The Agency has considered
this suggestion but has adopted it because sufficient clearance should
have been provided in these escapeways through proper planning and
engineering.
The Agency received questions during informational meetings
regarding the need for minimum requirements for door height. The Agency
has reviewed its position concerning door heights and is proposing in
paragraph (d)(3) to permit door heights of less than 5 feet under
certain conditions. Door heights of less than 5 feet would be permitted
provided the operator demonstrates by the stretcher test described
above that persons, including disabled persons, can escape without
delay. Passing this test assures that there would be no diminution of
safety under the new provision. Allowing heights less than 5 feet in
these doors is not expected to result in a delay. Normally, there are
few doors in an escapeway and the distance to be traversed in a door is
short. Also, since significant pressure differentials can exist in
escapeways, doors which are less than 5 feet would be easier to open.
Paragraphs (d)(4)(i), and (ii) would be unchanged under the
proposal, aside from editorial revisions. These paragraphs are retained
to provide for situations where escapeways are permitted to be less
than 6 feet in width.
Paragraph (d)(4)(iii) of the proposal would apply to alternate
escapeways only. As discussed above, paragraphs (d)(4)(i) and (ii)
permit both escapeways to be less than 6 feet, but not less than 4
feet, in width under certain conditions. Paragraph (d)(4)(iii) would
permit widths less than 4 feet in alternate escapeways when conditions
warrant and a test is conducted to demonstrate the adequacy of the
width. The conditions that could warrant lesser widths would include
the locations where the alternate escapeway passes through doors or
other permanent ventilation controls or where supplemental roof support
is required. The Agency would expect that when there is a need to
determine whether adequate width is provided, the stretcher test
discussed above would be applied. Under this provision, it is
conceivable that escapeway widths less than 4 feet could be warranted
by the conditions in the entry through which the escapeway is routed.
The Agency has developed proposed paragraph (d)(4)(iii) based on
comments received since May 1992 and on its own internal review.
Previously, approval has been requested and granted for reduced
horizontal escapeway widths using the above-described stretcher test.
These approvals were based on the need to provide additional roof
support and, in some cases, the need for passage through ventilation
controls. Additionally, as newer portions of a mine age and may require
additional roof support, the proposal would allow clearances of less
than 4 feet in the alternate escapeway, provided the stretcher test is
passed. The Agency solicits comments as to whether this proposed
approach achieves the result of the standard while adequately
addressing the safety issues of providing necessary supplemental roof
support in the alternate escapeway. The Agency also solicits comments
on whether the distance that the escapeway is permitted to be less than
4 feet should be limited and if so, what the limit should be.
Following the publication of the existing ventilation rule, some
persons interpreted Sec. 75.380(d) to require the width of mobile
equipment to be considered when determining compliance with width
requirements for escapeways. It is not the Agency's intent that mobile
equipment be considered in this determination unless the equipment has
been permanently abandoned in the escapeway or would be obstructing the
escapeway for a significant portion of a shift. As an example, where a
track entry is used as the primary escapeway on a longwall section,
material cars would not be permitted to obstruct the escapeway since
the obstruction would exist for long periods of time.
During the informational meetings, a question arose as to the
Agency's intent in eliminating the requirement that escapeways be
routed to the ``nearest mine opening.'' It was not the Agency's intent
to change this requirement from the previous standard. The existing
requirement that the escapeway follow the most direct route to the
surface would, in fact, require the route to go to the nearest mine
opening. However, to eliminate any confusion that may exist, the
proposal would revise paragraph (d)(5) and adopt language similar to
that in previous regulation Sec. 75.1704-2(a), that the escapeway
follow the most direct, safe and practical route to the nearest mine
opening suitable for the safe evacuation of miners.
A number of factors affect whether or not the safest, most direct,
practical route has been selected. These factors include roof
conditions, travel height, fan location, physical dimensions of the
mine opening, and similar considerations. For example, if bad roof
conditions are present along the shortest direct route and those roof
conditions are beyond reasonable control, then an alternate ``safest''
route designated by the mine operator may be appropriate. However, the
presence of roof falls does not necessarily indicate that the
passageway would not be suitable for evacuation. By way of another
example, where coal seam thickness varies to the extreme, the shortest
route may be through lower coal, making travel relatively slow and
difficult. An alternate route through a high passageway may permit
easier travel. Such an alternate route, although longer, may be
acceptable. Similarly, there can be instances where the ``nearest mine
opening'' may not be suitable for safe evacuation of miners. For
example, an old mine shaft may not be safe for travel because of badly
deteriorated conditions, such as a deteriorated shaft lining or
deteriorated timbers, even though the shaft is still suitable for mine
ventilation purposes. A mine shaft developed and equipped with a
ventilation fan prior to the effective date of this regulation may not
be suitable for safe evacuation of miners if alterations were necessary
for compliance with new safety regulations that would adversely affect
mine ventilation in the event of an emergency.
As with the existing standard, mine development projections would
not have to be altered to provide additional rooms, entries, or
crosscuts for the sole purpose of providing a passageway to the nearest
mine opening. However, the construction of ventilation controls such as
stoppings, overcasts and undercasts, or the installation of an escape
facility may be required to provide the most direct, safe and practical
route to the surface.
As with the existing standard, proposed paragraph (f)(1) would
require one escapeway that is ventilated with intake air to be
designated as the primary escapeway.
The proposed requirement for prohibiting certain equipment from
operating in primary escapeways in paragraphs (f)(3) through (f)(5)
would not apply to areas of escapeways where separation of belt and
trolley haulage entries from designated primary escapeways did not
exist before November 16, 1992. To require mobile equipment in these
areas of escapeways to be equipped with fire suppression would have no
appreciable safety benefit because of the presence of trolley wires,
trolley haulage equipment, and conveyor belts in these escapeways.
Paragraph (f)(3) of the proposal would clarify existing
requirements by explicitly prohibiting coal haulage in the primary
escapeway. The existing standard permits equipment to be in the
escapeway for purposes of hauling miners and materials and for
maintaining the escapeway. The existing standard does not expressly
prohibit the haulage of coal in the primary escapeway. As a matter of
clarification of intent, the proposal would specifically prohibit coal
haulage in the primary escapeway.
Through experience with the existing rule and after considering
comments received, the Agency is proposing to extend the prohibition of
certain equipment to other areas of primary escapeways so that the
prohibitions would properly extend to the majority of primary
escapeways. The proposal would extend the prohibitions to areas of
primary escapeways developed prior to November 16, 1992 where
separation of the escapeway from belt and trolley haulage entries
existed as of November 16, 1992. As with the existing rule, the
prohibition would not apply to equipment necessary to maintain the
primary escapeway in safe, travelable condition. The primary escapeways
excluded from these prohibitions are the same as those excluded from
the application of Sec. 75.380(g), that is, areas of escapeways where
separation of belt and trolley haulage entries from designated primary
escapeways did not exist before November 16, 1992. Comments are
solicited on the proposed expansion of the requirements for protecting
additional areas of the primary escapeway.
MSHA recognizes the need to protect the primary escapeway and also
realizes that different mine designs, the need to maintain air courses
safe for travel, and the need to occasionally move equipment
necessitates the operation of some mobile equipment in the primary
escapeway. MSHA would allow certain equipment in the primary escapeway
but would require fire suppression systems on the equipment. Paragraph
(f)(3) clarifies that mobile equipment not hauling coal and the
equipment listed in Sec. 75.340(b)(1) through (b)(6) may be used in the
primary escapeway.
Unlike the existing standard, proposed paragraph (f)(4) would
permit certain mobile equipment to be protected with a manual fire
suppression system instead of an automatic system, provided it is
continuously attended by a person trained and proficient in the use and
operation of the fire suppression system. For the purposes of
Sec. 75.380(f) by ``attended,'' the Agency means that the mobile
equipment operator would be on the equipment and be capable of
responding immediately in the event of a fire. When a piece of mobile
equipment is in the primary escapeway and is properly attended and
equipped with a manual fire suppression system, the equipment operator
can immediately respond to the situation, and the safety afforded by
the existing standard is maintained. However, if no one is attending
the equipment, an automatic system would be necessary to protect
against fire. Protection is thereby provided against a fire when a
machine is deenergized or shut off. If a machine is solely equipped
with a manual fire suppression system, continuous attendance would be
required under the proposal, regardless of whether the machine were
operating or shut off, if located in the primary escapeway.
Following publication of the existing ventilation rule, some
persons construed the requirement for an automatic fire suppression
system to apply to electric face equipment. This was not the intent of
the Agency. On November 16, 1992, MSHA issued Program Policy Letter No.
P92-V-4 addressing the operation and location of equipment in primary
escapeways to clarify the Agency's intent. Under existing regulation,
subpart L--Fire Protection, face equipment is required to be protected
by a manual fire suppression system. The proposal recognizes this
requirement and, other than an exception to permit a situation such as
the movement of continuous mining machines from section to section
without a continuous water supply, requires that face equipment
equipped with a manual fire suppression system be attended when in the
primary escapeway by a person trained and proficient in the proper use
and operation of the manual fire suppression system, providing
protection equivalent to automatic fire suppression systems.
It is proposed in paragraph (f)(4) that with exceptions for
continuous mining machines and as provided in Sec. 75.380 (f)(5) and
(f)(6) that each piece of mobile equipment in primary escapeways, (1)
be equipped with manually operated fire suppression systems installed
in compliance with Sec. 75.1107-3 through Sec. 75.1107-16 and be
attended continuously, or (2) be equipped with an automatic fire
suppression system that is capable of both automatic and manual
activation and installed in compliance with Sec. 75.1107-3 through
Sec. 75.1107-16.
Under paragraph (f)(5), personnel carriers and small personnel
conveyances which are designed and used solely for transportation of
personnel and small hand tools could be operated with a multipurpose
dry chemical type automatic fire suppression system capable of both
manual and automatic activation, if the system is suitable for the
intended application and listed or approved by a nationally recognized
independent testing laboratory. The proposal recognizes the small size
and limited potential for fire of this particular type of equipment.
The types of machinery under paragraph (f)(5) would not be required to
meet the additional requirements of Secs. 75.1107-3 through 75.1107-16.
For example, it would be impractical and would not enhance safety to
apply the minimum dry chemical poundage requirements of Sec. 75.1107-9
to small equipment designed and used solely for personnel and small
hand tools. Personnel carriers and small personnel conveyances would be
more appropriately protected by fully automatic systems of adequate
capacity which are suitable for the intended application and listed or
approved by a nationally recognized independent testing laboratory.
Commenters suggested that the term ``dry chemical'' would be more
appropriate than the term ``dry powder'' used in the existing standard.
The Agency agrees and the proposal would adopt this suggestion.
Under paragraph (f)(6), an additional exception is provided for
mobile equipment when no persons are inby other than persons directly
engaged in the use or moving of the equipment. The continuous mining
machine exception recognizes that the fire suppression system for the
continuous mining machine often relies on a water supply that may be
impracticable to provide during moves. Paragraph (f)(6) is being
proposed to permit the necessary movement of face equipment between
sections and to permit the primary escapeway to be properly maintained.
Under paragraph (f)(6) of the proposal, mobile equipment not having a
fire suppression system may be in the primary escapeway if no persons
are located inby except those directly engaged in the use of or the
moving of such equipment. For example, when moving longwall shields, no
one would be permitted to be inby equipment used to move the shield if
this equipment is not provided with a fire suppression system. With no
persons working inby, the use of machinery without a fire suppression
system would not expose persons to the hazard of toxic gases and fumes
carried inby.
It has been suggested to the Agency that certain types of emergency
equipment, such as diesel powered ambulances, should also be exempt
from the requirements for fire suppression systems. While the Agency
recognizes the potential benefit that can be attached to the use of
this type of equipment, the proposal does not exempt this equipment.
Comments are solicited on this issue.
During the informational meetings, the Agency became aware of a
concern that existing Sec. 75.380(i)(2) would permit slopes of
significant length and inclination to exist without any mechanical
escape facilities. An example used is a slope of 900 feet inclined at
18 degrees from the horizontal. It was suggested that such a slope
could be particularly difficult for passage of injured persons under
cold and icy conditions if mechanical escape facilities were not
provided. In light of this concern, the Agency has reconsidered its
position and is proposing in paragraph (i)(2) that any slope that is
part of a designated escapeway and is inclined more than 9 degrees from
the horizontal be provided with mechanical escape facilities. The
Agency solicits comments on this proposal.
Following promulgation of the standard, the Agency received
comments that the final rule language should have retained the proposed
rule language relative to ventilation of the primary and alternate
escapeways with separate splits of intake air. As discussed in the
preamble to the existing standard, this issue, along with several other
issues, was referred to an advisory committee appointed by the
Secretary of Labor. The advisory committee has submitted its final
report to the Secretary for review and appropriate action.
Section 75.380(b)(1) of the existing standard requires escapeways
to be provided from each working section. A working section is defined
in Sec. 75.2 as beginning at the underground loading point. The
proposal would continue the practice of permitting mines which have not
established a loading point to haul coal with mobile equipment.
Providing escapeways during the installation and removal of
mechanized mining equipment is necessary to provide safe escape for
miners from hazards that may develop during these phases of the mining
operations. Although the Agency believes that the promulgation of
paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this standard was done appropriately,
they are being reproposed for the purposes of receiving and giving
consideration to all pertinent comments.
Section Sec. 75.382 Mechanical Escape Facilities
Consistent with current requirements in subpart O--Hoisting and
Mantrips, three new paragraphs are proposed under Sec. 75.382.
Paragraph (g) would require the designated examiner to certify by date,
time, and initials that the mechanical escape facilities examination
required by paragraph (c) was performed. The proposal would require
that the certification appear at or near the facility examined.
Certification has long been an accepted practice in the mining industry
for assuring that concerned individuals can readily determine that a
required examination has been completed. In the case of mechanical
escape facilities, if certification is not provided, precious time
could be lost as the escape facility is tested prior to use. The
certification proposed will provide the operator or the person using
the facility with assurance that the facility is safe to use.
Paragraph (h) would require that a record be made of the
examination performed in accordance with paragraph (c). The results of
the examination would be included in the record, including any
deficiency found along with the corrective actions taken to correct the
condition. The intent is that deficiencies be documented and that both
the mine foreman and superintendent, or other appropriate official be
made aware of any problems, assuring that follow-up and corrective
action will be taken. As with other records required by the existing
rule and this proposal, the record of the examination of mechanical
escape facilities provides valuable information to both the miners and
the operator. The record not only indicates that the examination has
been completed but also provides historical information on the nature
of deficiencies found during the examination and the type of corrective
action required.
The examiner would be permitted to complete the record immediately
following the end of the shift in which the examination was performed.
The record would be countersigned by the mine foreman by the end of the
mine foreman's next regularly scheduled working shift. During an
absence of the mine foreman, the person acting as mine foreman would
countersign. The Agency intends that the mine foreman, the person most
responsible for day-to-day operation of the mine, be notified of the
information contained in the reports. Allowing until the end of the
mine foreman's next regularly scheduled working shift to countersign
the report would assure that the mine foreman is aware of the results
of the examination and would enable corrective actions to be taken.
Paragraph (h) would also require that within two scheduled
production days thereafter, the record of the examination be
countersigned by the mine superintendent, mine manager, or other mine
official to whom the mine foreman is directly accountable. The intent
is to assure that a higher-level official, empowered to redirect
resources, be aware of any condition requiring corrective actions.
Since this second-level official may not be physically located at the
mine on a full-time basis, 2 scheduled production days are proposed as
a reasonable period of time for countersigning.
The proposal would require that the record be made in a state-
approved book or in a bound book with sequential machine-numbered
pages. Comments are solicited on this approach and on an alternative
approach wherein the Agency would develop, in coordination with the
states, books specific for the required records.
As with other records required by this proposal, proposed paragraph
(i) would require that these records be retained for at least 1 year at
a surface location at the mine and be made available for inspection by
authorized representatives of the Secretary and the representative of
miners. Records of examinations, provide the operator and other
interested parties with a history of the types of problems discovered
and the types of corrective actions required. In the opinion of the
Agency, a 1-year retention period is sufficient to satisfy this need.
Section 75.383 Escapeway Maps and Drills
Existing paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) deal with the escapeway map and
drill requirements in areas where mechanized mining equipment is being
installed or removed. Although the Agency believes that the
promulgation of paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) of this standard was done
appropriately, as with other provisions dealing with the installation
and removal of mechanized mining equipment, they are being reproposed
for the purposes of receiving and giving consideration to all pertinent
comments. The Agency believes that for areas where mechanized mining
equipment is being installed or removed, providing escapeways and
posting maps identifying these escapeways and conducting drills
specified in the standard are essential to maintain safety. These
requirements help to assure that miners are familiar with escape routes
so that, should escape become necessary, they can reach the surface as
quickly as possible.
Section 75.384 Longwall and Shortwall Travelways
Existing Sec. 75.384 addresses the requirements for a travelway on
the tailgate side of a longwall or shortwall, the location and marking
of the travelway, and procedures during a blockage of the travelway.
While the Agency has received comments suggesting that additional
involvement by the miners would be of benefit when a roof fall or other
blockage occurs that prevents travel in the tailgate travelway, no
changes are proposed to Sec. 75.384 at the present time. The Agency
believes that the existing procedures and regulations appropriately
address the hazards and provide a sufficient opportunity for input and
involvement for all interested parties. The following discussion
reviews the appropriate procedures and regulations.
The general procedures to be followed when such a blockage occurs
are specified in Sec. 75.384(c). The standard requires that work on the
face must cease, miners must be withdrawn, and MSHA must be notified.
The standard also prohibits work on the face until the procedures set
out in Secs. 75.215 and 75.222 are implemented.
Section 75.215 requires that the approved roof control plan specify
the procedures that will be followed if a ground failure prevents
travel out of the section through the tailgate side of the longwall. In
this regard, Sec. 75.222(g)(2), the roof control plan, would address
notification of the miners, re-instruction of the miners regarding
escapeways and escape procedures, re-instruction of the miners on the
availability and use of self-contained self-rescue devices, monitoring
and evaluation of air; location and effectiveness of communication, and
a means of transportation from the section. All approved roof control
and ventilation plans and revisions must be available to the miners
according to current regulations.
District managers historically have met with and will continue to
meet with interested parties to discuss plans under review or
previously approved. As plans are developed, reviewed, and approved,
MSHA considers written comments from all interested parties.
Additionally, the Act entitles a representative of the miners to
accompany an MSHA representative conducting an inspection or
investigation as a result of the Sec. 75.384(c)(3) notification to MSHA
of a blocked travelway. Finally, under Sec. 103(g) of the Act, miners
are entitled to request an inspection by MSHA.
Section 75.388 Boreholes in Advance of Mining
The Agency is proposing to revise Sec. 75.388(c) to require rib
holes to be drilled in one or both ribs of advancing working places
described in Sec. 75.388(a) ``as may be necessary for adequate
protection of miners in such working places.'' The present standard
requires that boreholes be drilled in at least one rib of advancing
working places described in Sec. 75.388(a). Although no change was
intended by the Agency in promulgating the current language, comments
indicate that the previous language was more specific and clearer to
the mining community. The Agency is therefore proposing to adopt
language similar to the previous regulation.
Section 75.389 Mining Into Inaccessible Areas
Section 75.389(c) addresses the special case where mining
operations mine through into areas where hazards and potential hazards
may be unknown. During the informational meetings and later
discussions, it became apparent that differing interpretations of the
application of this provision existed. To clarify the intent of the
Agency, the proposal would revise existing Sec. 75.389(c) by adding an
exception for routine mining-through operations that are a part of a
retreat mining system approved in the mine ventilation plan.
In some circumstances, the mining through occurs during routine
mining into an area which is covered by an approved ventilation plan.
In this case, the potential hazards have already been addressed in the
ventilation plan. The Agency believes that the requirements set out in
Sec. 75.389(c) should not apply in this situation and proposes an
exception to these requirements where the mining-through operations are
part of a retreat mining system approved in the mine ventilation plan
and are routine operations. Requiring the operator to submit duplicate
plans does not result in any safety benefit; therefore, the level of
safety provided by the existing standard is maintained.
IV. Derivation Table
The following derivation table lists the number of each proposed
standard and the number of the existing standard from which it is
derived.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New section Old section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
75.301................................................. 75.301.
75.310(a)(3)........................................... Partly new, 75.310(a)(3).
75.310(a)(4)........................................... Partly new, 75.310(a)(4).
75.310(c).............................................. Partly new, 75.310(c).
75.310(c)(5)........................................... New.
75.311(d).............................................. Partly new, 75.311(d).
75.312(a).............................................. Partly new, 75.312(a).
75.312(b)(1)........................................... Partly new, 75.312(b)(1).
75.312(b)(1)(i)........................................ New.
75.312(b)(1)(ii)....................................... 75.312(b)(1) through (b)(1)(ii).
75.312(c).............................................. Partly new, 75.312(c).
75.312(d).............................................. Partly new, 75.312(d).
75.312(f)(1)........................................... 75.312(f).
75.312(f)(2)........................................... New.
75.312(g).............................................. Partly new, 75.312(g).
75.312(h).............................................. Partly new, 75.312(h).
75.313(a)(3)........................................... 75.313(a)(3).
75.313(c)(2)........................................... Partly new, 75.313(c)(2).
75.313(c)(3)........................................... Partly new, 75.313(c)(3).
75.313(d)(1)(i)........................................ Partly new, 75.313(d)(1)(i).
75.313(d)(1)(ii)....................................... Partly new, 75.313(d)(1)(ii).
75.313(d)(2)........................................... New.
75.320(e).............................................. New.
75.321(a)(1)........................................... Partly new, 75.321(a).
75.321(a)(2)........................................... Partly new, 75.321(a).
75.323(b)(1)(i)........................................ 75.323(b)(1)(i).
75.323(b)(1)(ii)....................................... Partly new, 75.323(b)(1)(ii).
75.323(b)(1)(iii)...................................... 75.323(b)(1)(iii).
75.323(b)(2)........................................... 75.323(b)(2).
75.323(c)(1)........................................... Partly new, 75.323(c)(1).
75.323(d)(2)(i)........................................ Partly new, 75.323(d)(2)(i).
75.325(d).............................................. 75.325(d).
75.330(c).............................................. New.
75.332(a)(1)........................................... 75.332(a)(1).
75.333(a).............................................. Partly new, 75.333(a).
75.333(b)(1)........................................... 75.333(b)(1).
75.333(b)(3)........................................... Partly new, 75.333(b)(3).
75.333(b)(4)........................................... Partly new, 75.333(b)(4).
75.333(b)(5)........................................... New.
75.333(b)(6)........................................... 75.333(b)(5).
75.333(e)(1)(i)........................................ Partly new, 75.333(e)(1).
75.333(e)(1)(ii)....................................... Partly new, 75.333(e)(2).
75.333(h).............................................. New.
75.334(e).............................................. Partly new, 75.334(e).
75.334(f).............................................. 75.334(f).
75.340(a).............................................. Partly new, 75.340(a).
75.342(a)(4)........................................... Partly new, 75.342(a)(4).
75.344(a)(1)........................................... Partly new, 75.344(a)(1).
75.344(b)(2)........................................... New.
75.344(b)(3)........................................... 75.344(b)(2).
75.344(e).............................................. New.
75.360(a)(1)........................................... Partly new, 75.360(a)(1).
75.360(a)(2)........................................... New.
75.360(b).............................................. Partly new, 75.360(b).
75.360(b)(1)........................................... Partly new, 75.360(b)(1).
75.360(b)(3)........................................... Partly new, 75.360(b)(3).
75.360(b)(4)........................................... Partly new, 75.360(b)(4).
75.360(b)(6)(i)........................................ Partly new, 75.360(6).
75.360(b)(6)(ii)....................................... Partly new, 75.360(6).
75.360(b)(8)........................................... New.
75.360(b)(9)........................................... New.
75.360(b)(10).......................................... New.
75.360(c).............................................. Partly new, 75.360(c).
75.360(c)(1)........................................... Partly new, 75.360(c)(1).
75.360(c)(3)........................................... Partly new, 75.360(c)(3).
75.360(f).............................................. Partly new, 75.360(g).
75.362(a)(1)........................................... Partly new, 75.362(a)(1).
75.362(a)(2)........................................... New.
75.362(c)(1)........................................... Partly new, 75.362(c)(1).
75.362(c)(2)........................................... 75.362(c)(2).
75.362(d)(1)(i)........................................ New.
75.362(d)(1)(iii)...................................... Partly new, 75.362(d)(1)(ii).
75.362(d)(2)........................................... Partly new, 75.362(d)(2).
75.362(g).............................................. New.
75.363................................................. Partly new, 75.360, 75.361, 75.362, 75.364.
75.364(a).............................................. Partly new, 75.364(a).
75.364(b).............................................. Partly new, 75.364(b).
75.364(h).............................................. Partly new, 75.364(h).
75.370(a)(3)........................................... Partly new, 75.370(a)(3).
75.370(b).............................................. New.
75.370(c)(1)........................................... Partly new, 75.370(b)(1).
75.370(f).............................................. Partly new, 75.370(e).
75.371(b).............................................. 75.371(b).
75.371(r).............................................. 75.371(r).
75.371(s).............................................. Partly new, 75.371(s).
75.371(z).............................................. Partly new, 75.371(z).
75.371(bb)............................................. Partly new, 75.371(bb).
75.372(b)(3)........................................... Partly new, 75.372(b)(3).
75.372(b)(19).......................................... New.
75.372(b)(20).......................................... New.
75.380(b).............................................. 75.380(b).
75.380(d)(3)........................................... Partly new, 75.380(d)(3).
75.380(d)(4)(ii)....................................... Partly new, 75.380(d)(4)(ii).
75.380(d)(4)(iii)...................................... New.
75.380(d)(5)........................................... Partly new, 75.380(d)(5).
75.380(f)(1)........................................... Partly new, 75.380(f)(1).
75.380(f)(2)........................................... New.
75.380(f)(3)........................................... Partly new, 75.380(f)(1).
75.380(f)(4)........................................... Partly new, 75.380(f)(2).
75.380(f)(5)........................................... Partly new, 75.380(f)(2).
75.380(f)(6)........................................... New.
75.380(i)(2)........................................... Partly new, 75.380(i)(2).
75.382(g).............................................. New.
75.382(h).............................................. New.
75.382(i).............................................. New.
75.383(a).............................................. 75.383(a).
75.383(b)(1)........................................... 75.383(b)(1).
75.388(c).............................................. Partly new, 75.388(c).
75.389(c).............................................. New.
75.389(1).............................................. 75.389(c)(1).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Redesignation Table
The following redesignation table lists the section number of the
existing standard and the section numbers of proposed standards which
contain revised provisions derived from the corresponding existing
section.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New section Old section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
75.310(a)(3)........................................... 75.310(a)(3).
75.310(a)(4)........................................... 75.310(a)(4).
75.310(a)(5)........................................... 75.310(a)(6).
75.310(a)(6)........................................... 75.310(a)(7).
75.310(c).............................................. 75.310(c).
75.311(d).............................................. 75.311(d).
75.312(a).............................................. 75.312(a).
75.312(b)(1)(i)........................................ 75.312(b)(1)(ii)(A).
75.312(b)(1)(ii)....................................... 75.312(b)(1)(ii)(B).
75.312(c).............................................. 75.312(c).
75.312(d).............................................. 75.312(d).
75.312(f).............................................. 75.312(f)(1).
75.312(g)(1)........................................... 75.312(g)(1).
75.312(g)(2)........................................... 75.312(g)(3).
75.312(g)(3)........................................... 75.312(g)(4).
75.312(h).............................................. 75.312(h).
75.313(c)(2)........................................... 75.313(c)(2).
75.313(c)(3)........................................... 75.313(c)(3).
75.313(d)(1)(i)........................................ 75.313(d)(1)(i).
75.313(d)(1)(ii)....................................... 75.313(d)(1)(ii).
75.313(d)(2)........................................... 75.313(d)(2).
75.321(a).............................................. 75.321(a)(1).
75.321(a).............................................. 75.321(a)(2).
75.323(b)(1)(ii)....................................... 75.323(b)(1)(ii).
75.323(c)(1)........................................... 75.323(c)(1).
75.323(d)(2)(i)........................................ 75.323(d)(2)(i).
75.333(b)(5)........................................... 75.333(b)(6).
75.334(e).............................................. 75.334(e).
75.340(a).............................................. 75.340(a).
75.342(a)(4)........................................... 75.342(a)(4).
75.344(a)(1)........................................... 75.344(a)(1).
75.344(b)(2)........................................... 75.344(b)(3).
75.360(a).............................................. 75.360(a)(1).
75.360(b).............................................. 75.360(b).
75.360(b)(1)........................................... 75.360(b)(1).
75.360(b)(3)........................................... 75.360(b)(3).
75.360(b)(4)........................................... 75.350(b)(4).
75.360(b)(6)........................................... 75.360(b)(6)(i).
75.360(b)(6)........................................... 75.360(b)(6)(ii).
75.360(c).............................................. 75.360(c).
75.360(c)(1)........................................... 75.360(c)(1).
75.360(c)(3............................................ 75.360(c)(3).
75.360(e).............................................. 75.360(e), 75.363.
75.360(g).............................................. 75.360(g).
75.362(a)(1)........................................... 75.362(a)(1)(i).
75.362(c)(1)........................................... 75.362(c)(1).
75.362(d)(1)(i)........................................ 75.362(d)(1)(ii).
75.362(d)(1)(ii)....................................... 75.362(d)(1)(iii).
75.362(d)(2)........................................... 75.362(d)(2).
75.362(g).............................................. Removed.
75.362(h).............................................. Removed.
75.364(a).............................................. 75.364(a).
75.364(b).............................................. 75.364(b).
75.364(h).............................................. 75.364(h).
75.370(a)(3)........................................... 75.370(a)(3).
75.370(b)(1)........................................... 75.370(c)(1).
75.370(c).............................................. 75.370(d).
75.370(d).............................................. 75.370(e).
75.370(f).............................................. 75.370(g).
75.371(s).............................................. 75.371(s).
75.371(z).............................................. 75.371(z).
75.371(bb)............................................. 75.371(bb).
75.372(b)(3)........................................... 75.372(b)(3).
75.380(d)(3)........................................... 75.380(d)(3).
75.380(d)(4)(ii)....................................... 75.380(d)(4)(ii).
75.380(d)(5)........................................... 75.380(d)(5).
75.380(f).............................................. 75.380(f).
75.380(i)(2)........................................... 75.380(i)(2).
75.388(c).............................................. 75.388(c).
75.389(c)(1)........................................... 75.389(1).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
In accordance with Executive Order 12866 MSHA prepared a
preliminary impact analysis (PRIA) to estimate the potential costs and
benefits associated with the proposed revisions to the ventilation
rule. Based upon the available data, MSHA has determined in its PRIA
that this rule would neither result in major cost increases nor have an
effect of $100 million or more on the economy. A copy of the PRIA is
available from the MSHA docket office and is summarized as follows.
Benefits
In assessing costs and benefits of the ventilation rule, it is
important to note that ventilation of underground coal mines is the
primary method of preventing the accumulation of explosive methane gas,
controlling harmful respirable dust, and assuring the quality of air
miners breath. Because of the potential for a large number of
fatalities resulting from ventilation problems, MSHA has found it
prudent to establish multiple safety factors and safety work practices
to better assure adequate protection for miners. It is extremely
difficult to specifically quantify safety benefits related to each
safety factor. However, due to the close, confined nature of the
workplace in an underground coal mine, failure of any safety factors or
protective actions related to ventilation can have disastrous effects.
In 1984, a fire starting from an over heated compressor at the Wilberg
Mine resulted in 27 deaths. More recently, an explosion at the William
Station Mine in 1989 resulted in 10 deaths and exposed other miners to
high concentrations of carbon monoxide and smoke. In the restricted
work environment of an underground coal mine, failure of a single
safety factor or noncompliance with a safe work practice could
jeopardize the well-being of all miners underground. The total effect
of the provisions in this proposed rule in conjunction with MSHA's
existing ventilation standards should decrease the occurrence of
fatalities, injuries, accidents, and illnesses in underground coal
mines.
With respect to this proposed rule, the Agency has identified nine
fatalities and seven injuries which potentially could have been
prevented by compliance with these proposed provisions. In addition,
the proposal contains provisions to better assure compliance with the
respirable dust control parameters specified in the mine ventilation
plan. Adherence to these parameters helps to maintain a work
environment free of excessive levels of respirable dust, thereby
improving long-term health protection for miners and potentially
reducing the number of miners afflicted with coal workers'
pneumoconiosis.
Some proposed provisions clarify the intent of the current rule.
Such clarifications should increase the likelihood of compliance and
thereby would help to increase the probability of preventing a
fatality, injury, or non-injury accident. For the proposed provisions
which would offer an alternative compliance option, the miners would be
provided at least the same level of safety provided by an existing
requirement. These provisions would facilitate compliance by the
operator, thereby increasing the potential for the rule to reduce the
probability of a ventilation-related explosion or accident.
In conclusion, the Agency determined that these proposed provisions
would increase the probability that compliance with the ventilation
rule would prevent future ventilation-related accidents and generate a
safer mining environment.
Compliance Costs
MSHA has compared the costs associated with the existing
requirements with the costs of the proposed requirements. For the
purpose of estimating the incremental compliance cost increases or
decreases, these proposed provisions have been divided into three
categories, each category requiring a slightly different approach in
estimating the costs of compliance.
The first category includes those proposed provisions which retain
or clarify requirements specified in the existing rule. For this
category, there would be no additional costs of compliance if these
were estimated in the RIA to the May 1992 rule.
The second category includes those proposed provisions that would
provide a mine operator with an alternative compliance option to an
existing requirement (for example, allowing a miner to continuously
attend an operating compressor instead of requiring the compressor to
be located in a noncombustible structure). For this category, the
availability of an alternative compliance option can affect the level
of compliance, depending on the alternative selected. Thus, the
availability of an alternative compliance option could reduce the costs
of compliance for some mine operators. However, the potential
compliance cost savings depend upon whether the operator selects the
alternative compliance option. MSHA believes that the operator's
decision would depend on factors that may vary widely among mines,
therefore, MSHA estimated a percentage of mines likely to use a
specific option and based its projected cost savings on these
estimates.
The third category includes those proposed provisions that would
impose new requirements (for example, requiring an automatic shut down
feature on a mobile compressor when the fire suppression system is
activated). For this category, the potential incremental compliance
costs were estimated by using full compliance with the existing rule or
existing industry practices as the baseline.
Based on the available data, MSHA estimated that compliance with
the proposed rule would cost the mining industry $3.8 million in first-
year costs, or about $826,500 in annualized costs. Net annual
compliance costs would be about $7.6 million. The total of annualized
plus annual costs is projected to be about $8.4 million. In addition to
these incremental costs, during the first year of compliance with the
new air quality requirements under Sec. 75.321, it is possible that two
large mines may lose a block of coal, resulting in approximately $6
million in lost production to these mines.
Executive Order 12866 requires that regulatory agencies assess the
impact to the government for any regulation determined to be a
significant regulatory action. MSHA does not believe that the proposed
rule will create any significant cost impacts to the government. The
proposed regulation can be implemented under existing government
practices without any substantial equipment or facility expenditures by
the government.
The incremental compliance costs for all underground coal mines are
listed by provision in Table I.
Table I.--Compliance Costs to Comply With the Proposed Ventilation Rule
for All Underground Coal Mines
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First
Standard year Annualized Annual
costs costs costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
75.310................................... 74 12 15
75.311................................... ....... .......... ........
75.312................................... ....... .......... (874)
75.313................................... ....... .......... 296
75.320................................... ....... .......... ........
75.321................................... \1\1 .5 200
75.323................................... ....... .......... ........
75.330................................... ....... .......... ........
75.333................................... ....... .......... ........
75.334................................... ....... .......... ........
75.340................................... 33 6
75.342................................... 48 8 48
75.344................................... 75 15 (1)
75.360................................... 142 23 2,794
75.362................................... ....... .......... 4,078
75.363................................... ....... .......... 119
75.364................................... ....... .......... 480
75.370................................... 13 2 2
75.371................................... ....... .......... ........
75.372................................... ....... .......... ........
75.380................................... 3,417 760 299
75.382................................... ....... .......... 113
75.388................................... ....... .......... ........
75.389................................... ....... .......... ........
------------------------------
Total Costs.............................. 3,803 826.5 7,569
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\In addition, to first year costs, two large mines could possibly lose
a block of coal for a total loss of $6 million (or $3 million per
mine), or the mines may be able to forego such costs by sinking an
additional shaft costing a total of $2 million ($1 million per mine).
Economic Impacts
The proposed ventilation rule would have a minimal impact upon
labor productivity, profits, prices, mining output, and mining
employment in underground coal mines. However, there is the potential
that some individual mines may incur significant compliance costs
associated with several provisions. First, some mines may be affected
by the provision that would establish the minimum oxygen level and
maximum carbon dioxide level for the air in bleeder entries and worked-
out areas where persons work or travel. In order to obtain a complete
and accurate cost of this proposed requirement, MSHA is requesting data
on the number of mines that would encounter an air quality problem
where a miner would be required to work or travel, the types of actions
needed for compliance, and the expected incremental costs of these
actions. Second, mines with deep cut sections would likely have
difficulty conducting methane measurements at the face. Therefore, MSHA
is requesting data on alternative compliance measures for deep cut
mining operations. Finally, mines may experience some difficulty
reconfiguring operations to address requirements concerning equipment
in primary escapeways.
Regulatory Flexibility Certification
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that agencies evaluate and
include, wherever possible, compliance alternatives that minimize any
adverse impact on small businesses when developing regulatory
standards. MSHA has not exempted small mines from any provision of the
proposed rule and small mines would benefit from some of the proposed
provisions and the proposed alternative compliance methods.
MSHA determined that these proposed revisions would not generate a
substantial cost increase for small mines. The lack of a substantial
cost increase for small mines, in conjunction with the fact that
similar hazards exist in both large and small mining operations,
indicates that regulatory relief is not warranted for small mining
operations. Therefore, MSHA has determined that these proposed
provisions would not have a significantly adverse impact upon a
substantial number of small entities.
The incremental costs for small and large mines are listed by
provision in Table II.
TABLE II.--Compliance Costs to Comply With the Proposed Ventilation Rule for Small and Large Underground Coal
Mines
[in thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First year costs Annualized costs Annual costs
Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Large Small Large Small Large
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
75.310........................ 24 50 4 8 5 10
75.311........................ ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...............
75.312........................ ........... ........... ........... ........... 316 (1,190)
75.313........................ ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 296
75.320........................ ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...............
75.321........................ ........... \1\1 ........... .5 ........... 200
75.323........................ ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...............
75.330........................ ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...............
75.333........................ ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...............
75.334........................ ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...............
75.340........................ 16 17 3 3 ........... ...............
75.342........................ 24 24 4 4 24 24
75.344........................ ........... 75 ........... 15 ........... (1)
75.360........................ 47 95 8 15 317 2,477
75.362........................ ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,095 2,983
75.363........................ ........... ........... ........... ........... 17 102
75.364........................ ........... ........... ........... ........... 145 335
75.370........................ 4 9 1 1 1 1
75.371........................ ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...............
75.372........................ ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...............
75.380........................ 888 2,529 199 561 78 221
75.382........................ ........... ........... ........... ........... 2 111
75.388........................ ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...............
75.389........................ ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...............
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................... 1,003 2,800 219 607.5 2,000 5,569
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\In addition to first year costs, two large mines could possibly lose a block of coal for a total loss of $6
million (or $3 million per mine), or the mines might be able to forego such costs by sinking an additional
shaft costing a total of $2 million ($1 million per mine).
Request for Data
MSHA requests specific information and data concerning any of the
assumptions and estimates made in its PRIA. In particular, MSHA
requests information on four proposed provisions. First, with respect
to Sec. 75.312, ``Main mine fan examinations and records,'' MSHA
requests data concerning any potential cost impacts to the mining
industry that may occur as a result of using an alternative test that
does not require stopping the fan. Second, with respect to Sec. 75.321,
``Air quality,'' MSHA requests data on the number of mines that would
encounter an air quality problem (either at an evaluation point or
going to and from an evaluation point), the current air quality level
at these mines, the types of actions needed for compliance, and the
expected incremental costs of these actions. Third, with respect to
Sec. 75.362, ``On-shift examination,'' MSHA requests data on
alternative compliance measures that deep cut mining operations, in
particular, would be able to use to conduct methane tests at the face.
Fourth, with respect to Sec. 75.380, MSHA requests information on the
cost of compliance associated with prohibiting certain equipment in the
primary escapeway, and costs related to alternative compliance
measures.
VI. Metric Measurements
The proposed rule has been prepared using the inch-pound system of
measurement (English system) instead of the SI (metric) system.
However, the Agency remains committed to accomplishing an orderly
transition to the SI system. The following table is intended to aid in
the conversion to metric units.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quantity From To Multiply by
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Length.......... Inches......... Centimeters.... 2.54
Feet........... Meters......... 0.304
Area............ Square feet.... Square meters.. 0.093
Velocity........ Feet/minute.... Meters/second.. 0.005
Pressure........ Lbs/sq.in...... Kilopascals.... 6.895
Lbs/sq.ft...... Kilopascals.... 0.049
Air quantity.... Cu.ft./min..... Cu.meters/sec.. 0.00047
Power........... Horsepower..... Kilowatts...... 0.746
Temperature..... Degrees F...... Degrees C...... TC=(TF-32)/1.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 75
Escapeways, Mine safety and health, Underground coal mines,
Ventilation.
Dated: May 12, 1994.
J. Davitt McAteer,
Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health.
It is proposed to amend part 75, subchapter O, chapter I of title
30 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 75--MANDATORY SAFETY STANDARDS--UNDERGROUND COAL MINES
1. The authority citation for part 75 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811, 957, and 961.
2. Section 75.301 is amended by revising the definition of ``Return
Air'' to read as follows:
Sec. 75.301 Definitions.
* * * * *
Return air. Air that has ventilated the last working place on any
split of any working section or any worked-out area whether pillared or
nonpillared. If air mixes with air that has ventilated the last working
place on any split of any working section or any worked-out area,
whether pillared or nonpillared, it is considered return air. For the
purposes of existing Sec. 75.507-1, air that has been used to ventilate
any working place in a coal producing section or pillared area, or air
that has been used to ventilate any working face if such air is
directed away from the immediate return is return air. Notwithstanding
the definition of intake air, for the purpose of ventilation of
structures, areas or installations that are required by this subpart D
to be ventilated to return air courses, and for ventilation of seals,
other air courses may be designated as return air courses by the
operator only when the air in these air courses will not be used to
ventilate working places or other locations, structures,
installations or areas required to be ventilated with intake air.
* * * * *
3. Section 75.310 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(4)
and (c), to read as follows:
Sec. 75.310 Installation of main mine fans.
(a) * * *
(3) Equipped with an automatic device that gives a signal at the
mine when the fan either slows or stops. A responsible person
designated by the operator shall always be at a surface location at the
mine where the signal can be seen or heard while anyone is underground.
This person shall be provided with two-way communication with the
working sections and other established locations where persons are
normally assigned to work;
(4) Equipped with a pressure recording device or system. If a
device or system other than a circular pressure recorder is used to
monitor main mine fan pressure, the monitoring device or system shall
provide a continuous graph or continuous chart of the pressure as a
function of time. At not more than 7-day intervals, a hard copy of the
continuous graph or chart shall be generated. Records of the fan
pressure shall be retained at a surface location at the mine for at
least 1 year and be made available for inspection by authorized
representatives of the Secretary and the representative of miners.
Mines that are permitted to shut down main mine fans under Sec. 75.311
may use an alternative device for monitoring main mine fan pressure
that does not provide a continuous record, provided it is approved in
the ventilation plan;
* * * * *
(c) If a main mine fan monitoring system is used under Sec. 75.312,
the system shall--
(1) Record, as described in paragraph (a)(4) the mine ventilating
pressure;
(2) Monitor bearing temperature, revolutions per minute, vibration,
electric voltage, and amperage;
(3) Provide, on demand, a printout of the monitored parameters,
including the mine ventilating pressure; and
(4) Be equipped with an automatic device that signals when--
(i) An electrical or mechanical deficiency exists in the monitoring
system; or
(ii) A sudden increase or loss in mine ventilating pressure occurs.
(5) Provide monitoring, records, printouts, and signals required by
paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) at a surface location at the mine
where a responsible person designated by the operator is always on duty
and where signals from the monitoring system can be seen or heard while
anyone is underground. This person shall be provided with two-way
communication with the working sections and other established locations
where persons are normally assigned to work.
* * * * *
4. Section 75.311 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 75.311 Main mine fan operation.
* * * * *
(d) If an unusual variance in the mine ventilation pressure is
observed, or if an electrical or mechanical deficiency of a main mine
fan is detected, the mine superintendent, assistant mine
superintendent, or mine foreman shall be notified immediately, and
appropriate action or repairs shall be instituted promptly.
* * * * *
5. Section 75.312 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(1),
(c), (d), (g)(1), and (h); by redesignating paragraph (f) as (f)(1) and
revising it; by redesignating paragraphs (g)(2) and (g)(3) as
paragraphs (g)(3) and (g)(4) and revising them, and by adding new
paragraphs (f)(2), (g)(2) and (g)(5) to read as follows:
Sec. 75.312 Main mine fan examinations and records.
(a) To assure electrical and mechanical reliability of main mine
fans, each main mine fan and its associated components, including
devices for measuring or recording mine ventilation pressure, shall be
examined for proper operation by a trained person designated by the
operator. Examinations of main mine fans shall be made at least once
each day that the fan operates, unless a functioning fan monitoring
system is used in accordance with Sec. 75.310. No examination is
required on any day when no one, including certified persons, goes
underground, but an examination shall be conducted prior to anyone
entering the mine.
(b) (1) If a main mine fan monitoring system is used, a trained
person designated by the operator shall--
(i) At least once each day obtain and review the data provided by
the fan monitoring system to assure that the fan and the fan monitoring
system are operating properly. No review is required on any day when no
one, including certified persons, goes underground, but a review of the
data shall be performed prior to anyone entering the mine. Data
reviewed should include the fan pressure, bearing temperature,
revolutions per minute, vibration, electric voltage, and amperage; and
(ii) At least every 7 days--
(A) Test the monitoring system for proper operation; and
(B) Examine each main mine fan and its associated components to
assure electrical and mechanical reliability of main mine fans.
* * * * *
(c) At least every 31 days, the automatic fan signal device for
each main mine fan shall be tested by stopping the fan. Notwithstanding
the provisions of Sec. 75.311, underground power may remain energized
during this test. If the fan is not restarted within 15 minutes,
underground power shall be deenergized and no one shall enter any
underground area of the mine, except as provided in this paragraph
below, until the fan is restarted and an examination of the mine is
conducted as described in Sec. 75.360 (b) through (e) and the mine has
been determined to be safe. Only persons necessary to evaluate the
effect of the fan stoppage or restart, or to perform maintenance or
repair work that cannot otherwise be made while the fan is operating,
shall be permitted underground. An alternative test that does not
require stopping the fan may be used provided it provides the same
level of assurance that the fan signal will function as intended during
fan stoppages and the alternative method is approved in the ventilation
plan.
(d) At least every 31 days, the automatic closing doors in multiple
main mine fan systems shall be tested by stopping the fan.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Sec. 75.311, underground power may
remain energized during this test. If the fan is not restarted within
15 minutes, underground power shall be deenergized and no one shall
enter any underground area of the mine, except as provided in this
section, until the fan is restarted and an examination of the mine is
conducted as described in Sec. 75.360 (b) through (e) and the mine has
been determined to be safe. Only persons necessary to evaluate the
effect of the fan stoppage or restart, or to perform maintenance or
repair work that cannot otherwise be made while the fan is operating,
shall be permitted underground. An alternative test that does not
require stopping the fan may be used, provided it provides the same
level of assurance that the automatic closing doors will function as
intended during fan stoppages and the alternative method is approved in
the ventilation plan.
* * * * *
(f) (1) Certification. Persons making main mine fan examinations
shall certify by initials and date at the fan or another location
specified by the operator that the examinations were made. Each
certification shall identify the main mine fan examined.
(2) Persons reviewing data produced by a main mine fan monitoring
system shall certify by initials and date on a printed copy of the data
from the system that the review was completed.
(g) (1) Recordkeeping. By the end of the shift on which the
examination is made, persons making main mine fan examinations shall
record all defects found during the examination that may affect the
operation of the fan. Records shall be maintained in a state-approved
book or in a bound book with sequential machine-numbered pages.
(2) When a fan monitoring system is used in lieu of the daily fan
examination--
(i) The certified copies of data produced by fan monitoring systems
shall be maintained separate from other computer-generated reports or
data; and
(ii) A record shall be made of any fan monitoring system
malfunctions, electrical or mechanical deficiencies in the monitoring
system and any sudden increase or loss in mine ventilating pressure.
The record shall be made by the end of the shift on which the review of
the data is completed and shall be maintained in a state-approved book
or in a bound book with sequential machine-numbered pages.
(3) At mines permitted to shut down main mine fans under
Sec. 75.311, if a pressure recording device is not used, a record shall
be made of the time and fan pressure immediately before the fan is
stopped, and after the fan is restarted and the fan pressure
stabilizes. Records shall be maintained in a state-approved book or in
a bound book with sequential machine-numbered pages.
(4) By the end of the shift on which the monthly test of the
automatic fan signal device or the automatic closing doors is
completed, persons making these tests shall record the results of the
tests. Records shall be maintained in a state-approved book or in a
bound book with sequential machine-numbered pages.
(5) The records required by paragraphs (g) (1) through (4) of this
section shall be countersigned by the mine foreman by the end of the
mine foreman's next regularly scheduled working shift. Within 2
scheduled production days thereafter, the record shall also be
countersigned by the mine superintendent, mine manager, or other mine
official to whom the mine foreman is directly accountable.
(h) Retention period. Records, including records of mine fan
pressure and the certified copies of data produced by fan monitoring
systems, shall be retained at a surface location at the mine for at
least 1 year from the date of the last entry and shall be made
available for inspection by authorized representatives of the Secretary
and the representative of miners.
* * * * *
6. Section 75.313 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(2) and
(c)(3), (d)(1) (i) and (ii), and (d)(2) of the stayed standard to read
as follows:
Sec. 75.313 Main mine fan stoppage with persons underground.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) Underground electric power circuits shall be deenergized.
However, circuits necessary to withdraw persons from the mine need not
be deenergized if located in areas or haulageways where methane is not
likely to migrate to or accumulate. These circuits shall be deenergized
as persons are withdrawn; and
(3) Mechanized equipment not located on working sections shall be
shut off. However, mechanized equipment necessary to withdraw persons
from the mine need not be shut off if located in areas where methane is
not likely to migrate to or accumulate.
(d)(1) * * *
(i) No one other than designated certified examiners shall enter
any underground area of the mine until an examination of the mine is
conducted as described in Sec. 75.360(b) through (e) and the area has
been determined to be safe.
(ii) Underground power circuits shall not be energized and
nonpermissible mechanized equipment shall not be started or operated in
an area until an examination of the mine is conducted as described in
Sec. 75.360(b) through (e) and the area has been determined to be safe.
(2) If ventilation is restored to the mine before miners reach the
surface, all miners except designated certified examiners shall
continue to the surface. No one other than certified persons conducting
examinations required by this subpart shall enter the mine until an
examination of the mine is conducted as described in Sec. 75.360(b)
through (e) and the mine has been determined to be safe. A record of
all hazardous conditions found during this examination shall be made in
accordance with Sec. 75.363.
* * * * *
7. The Agency is asking for comments on paragraph (a)(3) of
Sec. 75.313, which is identical to the text published in the Federal
Register on May 15, 1992 (57 FR 20916). This paragraph is being
reproposed and republished for the convenience of the readers to read
as follows:
Sec. 75.313 Main mine fan stoppage with persons underground.
* * * * *
(a)(3) Everyone shall be withdrawn from the working sections and
areas where mechanized mining equipment is being installed or removed.
* * * * *
8. Section 75.320 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 75.320 Air quality detectors and measurement devices.
* * * * *
(e) Maintenance of instruments required by paragraphs (a) through
(d) of this section shall be done by persons trained in such
maintenance. Before each shift, care shall be taken to assure that any
instrument to be used on that shift is in permissible condition.
* * * * *
9. Section 75.321 is amended by revising suspended paragraph (a) to
read as follows:
Sec. 75.321 Air quality.
(a) (1) The air in areas where persons work or travel, except as
specified in paragraph (a) (2) of this section, shall contain at least
19.5 percent oxygen and not more than 0.5 percent carbon dioxide, and
the volume and velocity of the air current in these areas shall be
sufficient to dilute, render harmless, and carry away flammable,
explosive, noxious, and harmful gases, dusts, smoke, and fumes.
(2) The air in areas of bleeder entries and worked-out areas where
persons work or travel shall contain at least 19.5 percent oxygen, and
carbon dioxide levels shall not exceed 0.5 percent time weighted
average and 3.0 percent short term exposure limit.
* * * * *
10. Section 75.323 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1)(ii),
(c)(1), and (d)(2)(i) to read as follows:
Sec. 75.323 Actions for excessive methane.
* * * * *
(b) (1) * * *
(ii) Changes or adjustments shall be made at once to the
ventilation system to reduce the concentration of methane to less than
1.0 percent; and
(c) * * *
(1) When 1.0 percent or more methane is present in a return air
split between the last working place on a working section and where
that split of air meets another split of air, or the location at which
the split is used to ventilate seals or worked-out areas changes or
adjustments shall be made at once to the ventilation system to reduce
the concentration of methane in the return air to less than 1.0
percent.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Changes or adjustments shall be made at once to the ventilation
system to reduce the concentration of methane in the return air below
1.5 percent;
* * * * *
11. The Agency is asking for comments on the following provisions
of paragraphs (b) (1) introductory text, (b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(iii) and
(b)(2) of Sec. 75.323 which is identical to the text published in the
Federal Register on May 15, 1992 (57 FR 20917). These provisions are
being reproposed and republished for the convenience of the readers to
read as follows:
Sec. 75.323 Actions for excessive methane.
* * * * *
(b) Working places and intake air courses. (1) When 1.0 percent or
more methane is present in a working place or an intake air course,
including an air course in which a belt conveyor is located, or in an
area where mechanized mining equipment is being installed or removed--
(i) Except intrinsically safe atmospheric monitoring systems (AMS),
electrically powered equipment in the affected area shall be
deenergized, and other mechanized equipment shall be shut off;
* * * * *
(iii) No other work shall be permitted in the affected area until
the methane concentration is less than 1.0 percent.
(2) When 1.5 percent or more methane is present in a working place
or an intake air course, including an air course in which a belt
conveyor is located, or in an area where mechanized mining equipment is
being installed or removed--
(i) Everyone except those persons referred to in Sec. 104(c) of the
Act shall be withdrawn from the affected area; and
(ii) Except for intrinsically safe AMS, electrically powered
equipment in the affected area shall be disconnected at the power
source.
* * * * *
12. The Agency is asking for comments on paragraph (d) of
Sec. 75.325 which is identical to the text published in the Federal
Register on May 15, 1992 (57 FR 20917). This paragraph is being
reproposed and republished for the convenience of the readers to read
as follows:
Sec. 75.325 Air quantity.
* * * * *
(d) Ventilation shall be maintained during installation and removal
of mechanized mining equipment. The approved ventilation plan shall
specify the quantity of air, the locations where this quantity will be
provided and the ventilation controls required.
* * * * *
13. Section 75.330 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 75.330 Face ventilation control devices.
* * * * *
(c) When the line brattice or any other face ventilation control
device is damaged to an extent that ventilation of the working face is
inadequate, production activities in the working place shall cease
until necessary repairs are made and adequate ventilation is restored.
14. The Agency is asking for comments on paragraph (a)(1) of
Sec. 75.332 which is identical to the text published in the Federal
Register on May 15, 1992 (57 FR 20918). This paragraph is being
reproposed and republished for the convenience of the readers to read
as follows:
Sec. 75.332 Working sections and working places.
(a)(1) Each working section and each area where mechanized mining
equipment is being installed or removed, shall be ventilated by a
separate split of intake air directed by overcasts, undercasts or other
permanent ventilation controls.
* * * * *
15. Section 75.333 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(1),
(b)(3), (b)(4), and (e)(1) and adding a new paragraph (h) to read as
follows:
Sec. 75.333 Ventilation controls.
(a) For purposes of this section, ``doors'' includes any
doorframes.
(b) * * *
(1) Between intake and return air courses, except temporary
controls may be used in rooms that are 600 feet or less from the
centerline of the entry from which the room was developed including
where continuous face haulage systems are used in such rooms. Unless
otherwise approved in the ventilation plan, these stoppings or controls
shall be maintained to and including the third connecting crosscut
outby the working face;
* * * * *
(3) To separate belt conveyor haulageways from intake air courses
when the air in the intake air course is used to provide air to active
working places. When continuous face haulage systems are used,
permanent stoppings or other permanent ventilation control devices
shall be built and maintained to the outby travel point of the dolly to
separate the haulage entry in which the low profile belt structure is
located from intake entries. Temporary ventilation controls may be used
in rooms that are 600 feet or less from the centerline of the entry
from which the rooms were developed;
(4) To separate the primary escapeway from belt and trolley haulage
entries, as required by Sec. 75.380(g). For purposes of Sec. 75.380(g),
the loading point for a continuous haulage system shall be the inby
most point of travel of the dolly; and
* * * * *
(e)(1)(i) Except as provided in paragraphs (e)(2), (e)(3) and
(e)(4) all overcasts, undercasts, shaft partitions, permanent
stoppings, and regulators, installed after [Insert the effective date
of this rule], shall be constructed in a manner and of materials that
results in a construction that has been tested and shown to have a
minimum strength of 39 pounds per square foot as tested under ASTM E72-
80 Section 12--Transverse Load-Specimen Vertical, load only.
(ii) All overcasts, undercasts, shaft partitions, permanent
stoppings, and regulators, installed after November 15, 1992, shall be
constructed of noncombustible material. Materials that are suitable for
the construction of overcasts, undercasts, shaft partitions, permanent
stoppings, and regulators include concrete, concrete block, brick,
cinder block, tile, or steel. No ventilation controls installed after
November 15, 1992, shall be constructed of aluminum.
* * * * *
(h) All permanent ventilation controls, including seals, shall be
maintained to serve the purpose for which they were built.
16. Section 75.334 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 75.334 Worked-out areas and areas where pillars are being
recovered.
* * * * *
(e) Each mining system shall be designed so that each worked-out
area can be sealed. The approved ventilation plan shall specify the
location and the sequence of construction of proposed seals.
* * * * *
17. The Agency is asking for comments on paragraph (f) of
Sec. 75.334 which is identical to the text published in the Federal
Register on May 15, 1992 (57 FR 20919). This paragraph is being
reproposed and republished for the convenience of the readers to read
as follows:
Sec. 75.334 Worked-out areas and areas where pillars are being
recovered.
* * * * *
(f) In place of the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
section, for mines with a demonstrated history of spontaneous
combustion, or that are located in a coal seam determined to be
susceptible to spontaneous combustion, the approved ventilation plan
shall specify the following:
(1) Measures to detect methane, carbon monoxide, and oxygen
concentrations during and after pillar recovery, and in worked-out
areas where no pillars have been recovered, to determine if the areas
must be ventilated or sealed.
(2) Actions that will be taken to protect miners from the hazards
of spontaneous combustion.
(3) If a bleeder system will not be used, the methods that will be
used to control spontaneous combustion, accumulations of methane-air
mixtures, and other gases, dusts, and fumes in the worked-out area.
* * * * *
18. Section 75.340 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 75.340 Underground electrical installations.
(a) Underground transformer stations, battery charging stations,
substations, rectifiers, and water pumps shall be located in
noncombustible structures or areas or be equipped with a fire
suppression system meeting the requirements of Sec. 75.1107-3 through
Sec. 75.1107-16.
(1) When a noncombustible structure or area is used, these
installations shall be--
(i) Ventilated with intake air that is coursed into a return air
course or to the surface and that is not used to ventilate working
places;
(ii) Ventilated with intake air that is monitored for carbon
monoxide or smoke by an AMS installed and operated according to
Sec. 75.351. Monitoring of intake air ventilating battery charging
stations shall be done with sensors not affected by hydrogen; or
(iii) Ventilated with intake air and equipped with sensors to
monitor for heat and for carbon monoxide or smoke. Monitoring of intake
air ventilating battery charging stations shall be done with sensors
not affected by hydrogen. The sensors shall deenergize power to the
installation, activate a visual and audible alarm located outside of
the enclosure on the intake side of the installation, and activate
doors that will automatically close when either of the following
occurs:
(A) The temperature in the noncombustible structure reaches 165
deg.F.
(B) The carbon monoxide concentration reaches 10 parts per million
above the ambient level for the area, or the optical density of smoke
reaches 0.05 per meter. At least every 31 days, sensors installed to
monitor for carbon monoxide shall be calibrated with a known
concentration of carbon monoxide and air sufficient to activate the
closing door, or each smoke sensor shall be tested to determine that it
functions correctly.
(2) When a fire suppression system is used, these installations
shall be--
(i) Ventilated with intake air that is coursed into a return air
course or to the surface and that is not used to ventilate working
places; or
(ii) Ventilated with intake air that is monitored for carbon
monoxide or smoke by an AMS installed and operated according to
Sec. 75.351. Monitoring of intake air ventilating battery charging
stations shall be done with sensors not affected by hydrogen.
* * * * *
19. Section 75.342 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4) to read
as follows:
Sec. 75.342 Methane monitors.
(a) * * *
(4) Methane monitors shall be maintained in permissible and proper
operating condition and shall be calibrated with a known air-methane
mixture at least once every 31 days. To assure that methane monitors
are properly maintained and calibrated, the operator shall:
(i) Use persons properly trained in the maintenance, calibration,
and permissibility of methane monitors to calibrate and maintain the
devices.
(ii) Develop and adopt a written maintenance program that shall be
made available for inspection by authorized representatives of the
Secretary and the representative of miners.
(iii) Maintain a record of all calibration tests of methane
monitors. Records shall be maintained in a state-approved book or in a
bound book with sequential machine-numbered pages.
(iv) Retain the record of calibration tests for 1 year from the
date of the test. Records shall be retained at a surface location at
the mine and made available for inspection by authorized
representatives of the Secretary and the representative of miners.
* * * * *
20. Section 75.344 is amended by revising stayed paragraph (a)(1),
redesignating paragraph (b)(2) as (b)(3) and adding new paragraphs
(b)(2) and (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 75.344 Compressors.
(a) * * *
(1) Located in a noncombustible structure or area unless a person
designated by the operator continuously attends and can see the
compressor at all times during its operation. Any designated person
attending the compressor shall be capable of activating the fire
suppression system and deenergizing or shutting off the compressor in
the event of a fire; and
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) While located immediately adjacent to a return air course
between two permanent ventilation controls and ventilated through an
intake control opening with a current of air that is then coursed
directly into the return air course. In lieu of the intake side
ventilation control, a door may be constructed in accordance with
Sec. 75.333 (d)(1) and (d)(2). The velocity of the air maintained
through the intake control opening shall be sufficient to prevent smoke
rollback or airflow reversal through this opening during a fire on a
compressor. The air quantity shall be sufficient to adequately cool the
compressor. Sensors for heat or carbon monoxide or smoke shall be
installed between the two permanent ventilation controls and shall
activate a visual and audible alarm located outside of the enclosure on
the intake side when either condition specified in paragraph (b)(3)(i)
or (ii) occurs; or
* * * * *
(e) Notwithstanding the requirements of Sec. 75.1107-4, upon
activation of any fire suppression system used under paragraph (a)(2)
of this section or activation of any system used under paragraph (b)(3)
of this section, the compressor shall be automatically deenergized or
automatically shut off.
* * * * *
21. Section 75.360 is amended by removing paragraph (e),
redesignating paragraphs (f) through (h) as (e) through (g), revising
paragraphs (a), introductory text to (b), (b)(1), (b)(3), (b)(4), and
(b)(6), introductory text to (c), (c)(1), introductory text to (c)(3),
and newly redesignated paragraph (f), and by adding paragraphs (b)(8)
through (b)(10) to read as follows:
Sec. 75.360 Preshift examination.
(a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, a
certified person designated by the operator shall make a preshift
examination within 3 hours preceding the beginning of any shift and
before anyone on the oncoming shift, other than certified persons
conducting examinations required by this subpart, enters any
underground area of the mine.
(2) Preshift examinations of areas where pumpers are scheduled to
work or travel shall not be required prior to the pumper entering the
areas if the pumper is a certified person and the pumper conducts an
examination for hazardous conditions and for noncompliance with
mandatory safety or health standards that could result in a hazardous
condition, tests for methane and oxygen deficiency and determines if
the air is moving in its proper direction in the area where the pumper
works or travels. The examination of the area must be completed before
the pumper performs any other work. A record of all hazardous
conditions found by the pumper shall be made and retained in accordance
with Sec. 75.363 by or at the end of the shift on which the condition
was found.
(b) The person conducting the preshift examination shall examine
for hazardous conditions and noncompliance with mandatory safety or
health standards that could result in a hazardous condition, test for
methane and oxygen deficiency, and determine if the air is moving in
its proper direction at the following locations:
(1) Roadways, travelways and track haulageways where persons are to
work or travel during the oncoming shift and are scheduled prior to the
beginning of the preshift examination.
* * * * *
(3) Working sections and areas where mechanized mining equipment is
being installed or removed, if anyone is scheduled to work on the
section or in the area during the oncoming shift. Also sections that
are not scheduled to operate but are capable of producing coal by
simply energizing the equipment on the section. The examination shall
include working places, approaches to worked-out areas and ventilation
controls on these sections or in these areas. The examination shall
also include a test of the roof, face and rib conditions on these
sections or in these areas.
(4) Approaches to worked-out areas along intake air courses and at
the entries used to carry air into worked-out areas. The examination of
the approaches to the worked-out areas shall be made in the intake air
course immediately inby and outby each entry used to carry air into the
worked-out area. The examination of the entries used to carry air into
the worked-out areas shall be at a point immediately inby the
intersection of each entry with the intake air course when the air in
the intake air course passes by the worked-out area prior to being used
to ventilate working sections where anyone is scheduled to work during
the oncoming shift.
* * * * *
(6) (i) Entries and rooms developed after November 15, 1992, and
developed more than 2 crosscuts off an intake air course without
permanent ventilation controls where intake air passes through or by
these entries or rooms to reach a working section where anyone is
scheduled to work during the oncoming shift; and,
(ii) Entries and rooms developed after November 15, 1992, and
driven more than 20 feet off an intake air course without a crosscut
and without permanent ventilation controls where intake air passes
through or by these entries or rooms to reach a working section where
anyone is scheduled to work during the oncoming shift.
* * * * *
(8) High spots along intake air courses where methane is likely to
accumulate, if equipment may be operated in the area during the shift.
(9) Underground electrical installations referred to in
Sec. 75.340(a), except water pumps, and areas where compressors subject
to Sec. 75.344 are installed if the installation or compressor is or
will be energized during the shift.
(10) Other areas where work or travel during the oncoming shift is
scheduled prior to the beginning of the preshift examination.
* * * * *
(c) The person conducting the preshift examination shall determine
the volume of air entering each of the following areas:
(1) In the last open crosscut of each set of entries or rooms on
each working section and areas where mechanized mining equipment is
being installed or removed if persons are scheduled to work or travel
in the section or area or other areas where coal can be produced by
simply energizing equipment. The last open crosscut is the crosscut in
the line of pillars containing the permanent stoppings that separate
the intake air courses and the return air courses.
* * * * *
(3) At the intake end of any pillar line where persons are
scheduled to work or travel, mechanized mining equipment is being
installed or removed, or coal can be produced simply by energizing the
equipment--
* * * * *
(f) Recordkeeping. A record of the results of each preshift
examination including a record of hazardous conditions and their
locations found by the examiner during each examination and of the
results and locations of air and methane measurements shall be made in
a book provided for that purpose on the surface before any persons
other than certified persons conducting examinations required by this
subpart enter any underground area of the mine. The results of methane
tests shall be recorded as the percentage of methane measured by the
examiner. The record shall be made by the certified person who made the
examination or by a person designated by the operator. If the record is
made by someone other than the examiner, the examiner shall verify the
record by initials and date by or at the end of the shift for which the
examination was made. A record shall also be made by a certified person
of the action taken to correct hazardous conditions found during the
preshift examination. Records shall be countersigned by the mine
foreman by the end of the mine foreman's next regularly scheduled
working shift. Within 2 scheduled production days thereafter, the
record shall also be countersigned by the mine superintendent, mine
manager, or other mine official to whom the mine foreman is directly
accountable. The record shall be made in a state-approved book or in a
bound book with sequential machine-numbered pages.
* * * * *
22. Section 75.362 is amended by removing paragraph (h);
redesignating paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (d)(1)(ii) as (d)(1)(ii) and
(d)(1)(iii); revising paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (c)(1), newly
redesignated (d)(1)(iii), (d)(2) and (g); and by adding new paragraph
(d)(1)(i) to read as follows:
Sec. 75.362 On-shift examination.
(a)(1) At least once during each shift, or more often if necessary
for safety, a certified person designated by the operator shall conduct
an on-shift examination of each section where anyone is assigned to
work during the shift and any area where mechanized mining equipment is
being installed or removed during the shift. The certified person shall
check for hazardous conditions, test for methane and oxygen deficiency,
and determine if the air is moving in its proper direction.
(2) At or near the beginning of any coal-producing shift, before
production begins on a section, a certified person designated by the
operator shall conduct an examination to assure compliance with the
respirable dust control parameters specified in the mine ventilation
plan. Deficiencies shall be corrected immediately. The examination
shall include air quantities and velocities, water pressures and flow
rates, water spray numbers and orientations, section ventilation and
control device placement, and any other dust suppression measures
required by the ventilation plan. Physical measurements of the air
velocity and quantity, water pressure and flow rates shall not be
required if continuous monitoring of these parameters is used and
indicates that the dust control parameters are functioning properly.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) The volume of air in the last open crosscut of each set of
entries or rooms on each section and areas where mechanized mining
equipment is being installed or removed. The last open crosscut is the
crosscut in the line of pillars containing the permanent stoppings that
separate the intake air courses and the return air courses.
* * * * *
(d)(1) * * *
(i) At the start of each shift at each working place before
electrically operated equipment is energized; and * * *
(iii) At 20-minute intervals, or more often if required in the
approved ventilation plan at specific locations, during the operation
of equipment in the working place.
(2) These methane tests shall be made at the face from under
permanent roof support, using extendable probes or other acceptable
means. When longwall or shortwall mining systems are used, these
methane tests shall be made at the shearer, the plow, or the cutting
head. When mining has been stopped for more than 20 minutes, methane
tests shall be conducted prior to the start up of equipment.
* * * * *
(g) Certification. The person making the on-shift examination in
belt haulage entries shall certify by initials, date, and time that the
examination was made. The certified person shall certify by initials,
date, and the time at enough locations to show that the entire area has
been examined.
* * * * *
23. The Agency is asking for comments on paragraph (c)(2) of
Sec. 75.362 which is identical to the text published in the Federal
Register on May 15, 1992 (57 FR 20923). This paragraph is being
reproposed and republished for the convenience of the readers to read
as follows:
Sec. 75.362 On-shift examination.
* * * * *
(c)(2) The volume of air on a longwall or shortwall, including
areas where longwall or shortwall equipment is being installed or
removed, in the intake entry or entries at the intake end of the
longwall or shortwall.
* * * * *
24. Section 75.363 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 75.363 Hazardous conditions; posting, correcting and recording.
(a) Any hazardous condition found by or reported to the mine
foreman, assistants to the mine foreman, or other certified persons
designated by the operator for the purposes of conducting examinations
under this subpart D, shall be posted with a conspicuous danger sign
where anyone entering the areas would pass. Hazardous conditions shall
be corrected immediately and the area shall remain posted until the
hazardous conditions are corrected. If these conditions create an
imminent danger, everyone except those persons referred to in section
104(c) of the Act shall be withdrawn from the area affected to a safe
area until the hazardous condition is corrected. Only persons
designated by the operator to correct or evaluate the conditions may
enter the posted area.
(b) A record shall be made of these hazardous conditions. This
record shall be kept in a book maintained for this purpose on the
surface at the mine. The record shall be made by the completion of the
shift on which the hazardous condition is found and shall include the
nature and location of the hazardous condition and the corrective
action taken. This record shall not be required for shifts when no
hazardous conditions are found or for hazardous conditions found during
the preshift or weekly examinations inasmuch as these examinations have
separate recordkeeping requirements.
(c) The record shall be made by the certified person or a person
designated by the operator. If made by a person other than the
certified person, the certified person shall verify the record by
initials and date by or at the end of the shift for which the
examination was made. The record shall be countersigned by the mine
foreman by the end of the mine foreman's next regularly scheduled
working shift. Within 2 scheduled production days thereafter, the
record shall also be countersigned by the mine superintendent, mine
manager, or other mine official to whom the mine foreman is directly
accountable. The record shall be made in a state-approved book or in a
bound book with sequential machine-numbered pages.
(d) Retention period. Records shall be retained for at least 1 year
at a surface location at the mine and made available for inspection by
an authorized representative of the Secretary and representative of
miners.
* * * * *
25. Section 75.364 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), the
introductory text of paragraph (b) and paragraph (h) to read as
follows:
Sec. 75.364 Weekly examination.
(a) Worked-out areas. (1) At least every 7 days, a certified person
shall examine unsealed worked-out areas where no pillars have been
recovered by traveling to the area of deepest penetration; measuring
methane and oxygen concentrations and air quantities and making tests
to determine if the air is moving in its proper direction in the area.
Air quantity measurements shall be made where the air enters and leaves
the worked-out area. Sufficient methane and oxygen measurements shall
be made so as to assure the air quality in the worked-out area. An
alternative method of evaluating the ventilation of the area may be
approved in the ventilation plan.
(2) At least every 7 days, a certified person shall evaluate the
effectiveness of bleeder systems used under Sec. 75.334(b) and (c) as
follows:
(i) Measurements of methane and oxygen concentrations and air
quantity and a test to determine if the air is moving in its proper
direction shall be made where air enters the worked-out area.
(ii) Measurements of methane and oxygen concentrations and air
quantity and a test to determine if the air is moving in its proper
direction shall be made immediately before the air enters a return
split of air.
(iii) Bleeder entries used as part of a bleeder system under
Sec. 75.334 shall be traveled in their entirety. Measurements of
methane and oxygen concentrations and air quantities and a test to
determine if the air is moving in its proper direction shall be made at
locations specified in the mine ventilation plan to determine the
effectiveness of the bleeder system.
(iv) In lieu of the requirements of paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (iii),
alternative methods of evaluation may be specified in the ventilation
plan provided the alternative method results in proper evaluation of
the effectiveness of the bleeder system.
(b) Hazardous conditions. At least every 7 days, an examination for
hazardous conditions and noncompliance with mandatory safety or health
standards that could result in a hazardous condition shall be made at
the following locations by a certified person designated by the
operator--
* * * * *
(h) Recordkeeping. At the completion of any shift during which a
portion of a weekly examination is conducted, a record of the results
of each weekly examination, including a record of hazardous conditions
found during each examination and their locations, the corrective
action taken, and the results and location of air and methane
measurements, shall be made. The results of methane tests shall be
recorded as the percentage of methane measured by the examiner. The
record shall be made by the person making the examination or a person
designated by the operator. If made by a person other than the
examiner, the examiner shall verify the record by initials and date by
or at the end of the shift for which the examination was made. The
record shall be countersigned by the mine foreman by the end of the
mine foreman's next regularly scheduled working shift. Within 2
scheduled production days thereafter, the record shall also be
countersigned by the mine superintendent, mine manager, or other mine
official to whom the mine foreman is directly accountable. The record
shall be made in a state-approved book or in a bound book with
sequential machine-numbered pages.
* * * * *
26. Section 75.370 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (b)
through (f) as (c) through (g); by revising paragraph (a)(3), newly
redesignated paragraphs (c)(1) and (f); and by adding a new paragraph
(b) to read as follows:
Sec. 75.370 Mine ventilation plan; submission and approval.
(a) * * *
(3) A copy of the proposed ventilation plan, and a copy of any
proposed revision, submitted for approval shall be--
(i) Provided to the representative of miners by the operator no
later than the time of submittal;
(ii) Made available for inspection by the representative of miners;
and
(iii) Posted on the mine bulletin board at the time of submittal.
The proposed plan or proposed revision shall remain posted until it is
approved, withdrawn or denied.
(b) Following receipt of the proposed plan or proposed revision,
the representative of miners may submit timely comments to the district
manager, in writing, for consideration during the review process.
(c) (1) The district manager will notify the operator in writing of
the approval or denial of approval of a proposed ventilation plan or
proposed revision. A copy of this notification will be sent to the
representative of miners by the district manager.
* * * * *
(f) The approved ventilation plan and any revisions shall be--
(1) Provided to the representative of miners by the operator
following notification of approval;
(2) Made available for inspection by the representative of miners;
and
(3) Posted on the mine bulletin board within 1 working day
following notification of approval. The approved plan and revisions
shall remain posted on the bulletin board for the entire period that
they are in effect.
* * * * *
27. Section 75.371 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (s), (z)
and (bb) to read as follows:
Sec. 75.371 Mine ventilation plan; contents.
* * * * *
(b) Planned main mine fan stoppages, other than those scheduled for
testing, maintenance or adjustment, including procedures to be followed
during these stoppages and subsequent restarts (see Sec. 75.311(a)) and
the type of device to be used for monitoring main mine fan pressure, if
other than a pressure recording device (see 75.310(a)(4)). Alternative
methods for testing fan signals and automatic closing doors in lieu of
stopping the main mine fan. (see Sec. 75.312(c) and (d)).
* * * * *
(s) The locations and frequency of the methane tests if required
more often by Sec. 75.362(d)(1)(iii) (see Sec. 75.362 (d)(1)(iii).
* * * * *
(z) The locations where measurements of methane and oxygen
concentrations and air quantities and tests to determine whether the
air is moving in the proper direction will be made to evaluate the
ventilation of nonpillared worked-out areas (see Sec. 75.364 (a)(1))
and the effectiveness of bleeder systems (see Sec. 75.364 (a)(2)(iii).
Alternative methods of evaluation of the effectiveness of bleeder
systems (Sec. 75.364 (a)(2)(iv)).
* * * * *
(bb) The location of ventilation devices such as regulators,
stoppings and bleeder connectors used to control air movement through
worked-out areas (see Sec. 75.334(c)(4)). The location and sequence of
construction of proposed seals for each worked-out area. (see
Sec. 75.334(e))
* * * * *
28. The Agency is asking for comments on paragraph (r) of
Sec. 75.371 which is identical to the text published in the Federal
Register on May 15, 1992 (57 FR 20925). This paragraph is being
reproposed and republished for the convenience of the readers to read
as follows:
Sec. 75.371 Mine ventilation plan; contents.
* * * * *
(r) The quantity of air and ventilation controls that will be
provided during the installation and removal of mechanized mining
equipment (see Sec. 75.325(d)).
* * * * *
29. Section 75.372 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(3) and
adding paragraphs (b)(19)and (b)(20) to read as follows:
Sec. 75.372 Mine ventilation map.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) All known mine workings that are located in the same coalbed
within 1,000 feet of existing or projected workings. These workings may
be shown on a mine map with a scale other than that required by
paragraph (a) of this section, if the scale does not exceed 2,000 feet
to the inch and is specified on the map.
* * * * *
(19) The entry height, velocity and direction of the air current at
or near the midpoint of each belt flight where the height and width of
the entry are representative of the belt haulage entry.
(20) The location and designation of air courses that have been
redesignated from intake to return for the purpose of ventilation of
structures, areas or installations that are required by this subpart D
to be ventilated to return air courses, and for ventilation of seals.
* * * * *
30. Section 75.380 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(3),
(d)(4)(ii), (d)(5), (f) and (i)(2); and by adding paragraph (d)(4)(iii)
to read as follows:
* * * * *
Sec. 75.380 Escapeways; bituminous and lignite mines.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(3) Maintained to at least a height of 5 feet from the mine floor
to the mine roof, excluding the thickness of any roof support, except
that the escapeways shall be maintained to at least the height of the
coalbed, excluding the thickness of any roof support, where the coalbed
is less than 5 feet. In areas of mines where escapeways pass through
doors, the height may be less than 5 feet, provided that sufficient
height is maintained to enable miners, including disabled persons, to
escape quickly in an emergency. In areas of mines developed before
November 16, 1992, where escapeways pass over or under overcasts, or
undercasts the height may be less than 5 feet provided that sufficient
height is maintained to enable miners, including disabled persons, to
escape quickly in an emergency;
* * * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) Where the route of travel passes through doors or other
permanent ventilation controls, the escapeway shall be at least 4-feet
wide to enable miners to escape quickly in an emergency, or
(iii) Where the alternate escapeway passes through doors or other
permanent ventilation controls or where supplemental roof support is
required, and it can be demonstrated that sufficient width is
maintained to enable miners, including disabled persons, to escape
quickly in an emergency.
(5) Located to follow the most direct, safe and practical route to
the nearest mine opening suitable for the safe evacuation of miners;
and
* * * * *
(f) Primary escapeway. (1) One escapeway that is ventilated with
intake air shall be designated as the primary escapeway.
(2) Paragraphs (f)(3) through (f)(6) of this section do not apply
to areas of a primary escapeway where separation of the belt and
trolley haulage entries from the primary escapeway did not exist before
November 16, 1992.
(3) The following equipment is not permitted in the primary
escapeway:
(i) Unattended diesel equipment.
(ii) Mobile equipment hauling coal.
(iii) Compressors, except--
(A) Compressors necessary to maintain the escapeway in safe,
travelable condition;
(B) Compressors that are components of equipment such as
locomotives and rock dusting machines; and
(C) Compressors of less than five horsepower.
(iv) Underground transformer stations, battery charging stations,
substations, and rectifiers except--
(A) Where necessary to maintain the escapeway in safe, travelable
condition; and
(B) Rectifiers and power centers with transformers that are either
dry-type or contain nonflammable liquid, provided they are located on
or near a working section and are moved as the section advances or
retreats.
(v) Water pumps, except--
(A) Water pumps necessary to maintain the escapeway in safe,
travelable condition;
(B) Submersible pumps;
(C) Permissible pumps and associated permissible switchgear;
(D) Pumps located on or near a working section that are moved as
the section advances or retreats;
(E) Pumps installed in anthracite mines; and
(F) Small portable pumps.
(4) Mobile equipment in the primary escapeway, except for
continuous miners and as provided in paragraphs (f)(5) and (f)(6)
below, shall be equipped with a fire suppression system installed
according to Secs. 75.1107-3 through 75.1107-16 that is--
(i) Manually operated and attended continuously by a person trained
in the systems function and use, or
(ii) A multipurpose dry chemical type capable of both automatic and
manual activation.
(5) Personnel carriers and small mobile equipment designed and used
only for carrying people and small hand tools may be operated in
primary escapeways if--
(i) The equipment is provided with a multipurpose dry chemical type
fire suppression system capable of both automatic and manual
activation, and
(ii) The suppression system is suitable for the intended
application and approved by a nationally recognized independent testing
laboratory.
(6) Mobile equipment not provided with a fire suppression system
may operate in the primary escapeway if no one is inby except those
persons directly engaged in using or moving the equipment.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(2) Each slope that is part of a designated escapeway and is
inclined more than 9 degrees from the horizontal.
* * * * *
31. The Agency is asking for comments on paragraph (b) of
Sec. 75.380 which is identical to the text published in the Federal
Register on May 15, 1992 (57 FR 20926). This paragraph is being
reproposed and republished for the convenience of the readers to read
as follows:
Sec. 75.380 Escapeways; bituminous and lignite mines.
* * * * *
(b) (1) Escapeways shall be provided from each working section, and
each area where mechanized mining equipment is being installed or
removed, continuous to the surface escape drift opening or continuous
to the escape shaft or slope facilities to the surface.
(2) During equipment installation, these escapeways shall begin at
the projected location for the section loading point. During equipment
removal, they shall begin at the location of the last loading point.
* * * * *
32. Section 75.382 is amended by adding paragraphs (g), (h), and
(i) to read as follows:
Sec. 75.382 Mechanical escape facilities.
* * * * *
(g) Certification. The person making the examination as required by
paragraph (c) of this section shall certify by initials, date, and the
time that the examination was made. Certifications shall be made at or
near the facility examined.
(h) Recordkeeping. At or by the completion of any shift during
which the weekly examination is made as required by paragraph (c) of
this section, a record of the results of the examination, including any
deficiency found and the corrective action taken, shall be made. The
record shall be made by the person making the examination. The record
shall be countersigned by the mine foreman by the end of the mine
foreman's next regularly scheduled working shift. Within 2 scheduled
production days thereafter, the record shall also be countersigned by
the mine superintendent, mine manager, or other mine official to whom
the mine foreman is directly accountable. The record shall be made in a
state-approved book or in a bound book with sequential machine-numbered
pages.
(i) Retention period. Records shall be retained for at least 1 year
at a surface location at the mine and made available for inspection by
authorized representatives of the Secretary and representative of
miners.
33. The Agency is asking for comments on paragraphs (a) and (b)(1)
of Sec. 75.383 which are identical to the text published in the Federal
Register on May 15, 1992 (57 FR 20927). These paragraphs are being
reproposed and republished for the convenience of the readers to read
as follows:
Sec. 75.383 Escapeway maps and drills.
(a) A map shall be posted in each working section, and in each area
where mechanized mining equipment is being installed or removed, and
shall show the designated escapeways from the working section to the
location where miners must travel to satisfy the escapeway drill
specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. A map showing the main
escapeways shall be posted at a surface location of the mine where
miners congregate, such as at the mine bulletin board, bathhouse, or
waiting room. All maps shall be kept up to date, and any changes in
route of travel, locations of doors, or directions of airflow shall be
shown on the maps by the end of the shift on which the changes are
made, and affected miners shall be informed of the changes before
entering the underground areas of the mine.
(b)(1) At least once every 90 days, each miner, including miners
with working stations located between working sections and main
escapeways, shall participate in a practice escapeway drill. During
this drill, each miner shall travel the primary or alternate escapeway
from the miner's working section or area where mechanized mining
equipment is being installed or removed, to the area where the split of
air ventilating the working section intersects a main air course, or
2,000 feet outby the section loading point, whichever distance is
greater. Other miners shall participate in the escapeway drill by
traveling in the primary or alternate escapeway for a distance of 2,000
feet from their working station toward the nearest escape facility or
drift opening. An escapeway drill shall not be conducted in the same
escapeway as the immediately preceding drill.
* * * * *
34. Section 75.388 is amended by revising the introductory text to
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 75.388 Boreholes in advance of mining.
* * * * *
(c) Boreholes shall be drilled in one or both ribs of advancing
working places described in paragraph (a) of this section as may be
necessary for adequate protection of miners in such working places.
These boreholes shall be drilled--
* * * * *
35. Section 75.389 is amended by adding introductory text to
paragraph (c), and the text of paragraph (c)(1) is republished without
charge to read as follows:
Sec. 75.389 Mining into inaccessible areas.
* * * * *
(c) Except for routine mining-through operations that are part of a
retreat section ventilation system approved in accordance with
Sec. 75.371 (f) and (x), the following provisions shall apply:
(1) Before and during mining-through operations, a certified person
shall perform air quality tests at intervals and at locations necessary
to protect the safety of the miners.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 94-12054 Filed 5-18-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-43-P
