4224 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Mine Safety and Health Administration 

30 CFR Part 49 

RIN 1219–AB44 

Underground Mine Rescue Equipment 

and Technology 

AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health 

Administration (MSHA), Labor. 

ACTION: Request for information. 

SUMMARY: The Mine Safety and Health 

Administration is requesting data, 

comments, and other information on 

issues relevant to underground mine 

rescue equipment and technology. Over 

the last several years, improvements 

have been made to communication 

devices, sensors and other forms of 

technology in general industry. As such, 

continuous development and 

deployment of mine rescue equipment 

and technology are crucial to enhancing 

the effectiveness of mine rescue 

operations and improving miners’ 

survivability in the event of a mine 

emergency. Responses to this request for 

information will assist the Agency in 

determining an appropriate course of 

action as necessary to improve mine 

rescue capabilities. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before March 27, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: zzMSHA– 

Comments@dol.gov. Include the 

Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 

for this rulemaking (RIN 1219–AB44) in 

the subject line of the message. 

• Fax: (202) 693–9441. Include RIN 

1219–AB44 in the subject line of the fax. 

• Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: 

MSHA, Office of Standards, 

Regulations, and Variances, 1100 

Wilson Blvd., Room 2313, Arlington, 

Virginia 22209–3939. If hand-delivered 

in person or by courier, please stop by 

the 21st floor first to check in with the 

receptionist before continuing on to the 

23rd floor. 

• Instructions: All submissions must 

reference MSHA and RIN 1219–AB44. 

Docket: To access comments 

electronically, go to http:// 

www.msha.gov and click on 

‘‘Comments’’ under ‘‘Rules and 

Regulations.’’ All comments received 

will be posted without change at this 

Web address, including any personal 

information provided. Paper copies of 

the comments may also be reviewed at 

the Office of Standards, Regulations, 

and Variances, 1100 Wilson Blvd., 

Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Stone, Office of Standards, 

Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, 

1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, 

Arlington, Virginia 22209–3939. Mr. 

Stone can be reached at 

Stone.Robert@dol.gov (Internet E-mail), 

(202) 693–9444 (voice), or (202) 693– 

9441 (facsimile). The documents also 

are available on the Internet at http:// 

www.msha.gov/currentcomments.asp. 

MSHA maintains a listserve on MSHA’s 

Web site that enables subscribers to 

receive e-mail notification when MSHA 

publishes rulemaking documents in the 

Federal Register. To subscribe to the 

listserve, visit the site at http:// 

www.msha.gov/subscriptions/ 

subscribe.aspx. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

When mine accidents occur, effective 

mine rescue operation can play a crucial 

role in ensuring the safe withdrawal of 

affected miners. Specialized rescue 

equipment and technology are 

important components of that effort. 

Section 501(a) of the Federal Mine 

Safety and Health Act of 1977 directs 

the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary 

of Health and Human Services ‘‘as 

appropriate’’ to ‘‘conduct such studies, 

research, experiments, and 

demonstrations as may be appropriate— 

(2) to develop new or improved 

methods of recovering persons in coal or 

other mines after an accident; and (3) to 

develop new or improved means and 

methods of communication from the 

surface to the underground area of a 

coal or other mine.’’ In addition, section 

502(b) of the Federal Mine Safety and 

Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) requires 

that the Secretary of Labor, to the 

greatest extent possible, provide 

technical assistance to mine operators in 

meeting the requirements of the Mine 

Act and in further improving the health 

and safety conditions and practices in 

the mines. The Mine Act also requires 

in Section 115(e) that the Secretary 

publish regulations for the availability 

of underground mine rescue teams. 

We accordingly test, evaluate and 

approve certain technologies and 

equipment for use in mines (see, Title 

30, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 

Subchapter B). We also promulgated 

requirements for underground mine 

rescue teams in part 49, 30 CFR, 

covering, among other things, team 

equipment, equipment maintenance, 

and training. 

II. Current Status of Mine Rescue 

The Sago Mine accident in West 

Virginia on January 2, 2006, that 

claimed the lives of 12 miners, has 

underscored the vital role that mine 

rescue operations play in response to 

catastrophic mine incidents. An MSHA 

investigation into the cause or causes of 

this accident, along with a detailed 

evaluation of the emergency response, is 

underway. Therefore, the role that the 

mine rescue played has yet to be 

determined and evaluated. We believe, 

however, that regardless of the outcome 

of the investigation, the role of 

equipment and technology in mine 

rescue efforts merits a separate review 

so that we can better assure that the best 

and most practicably available 

equipment and technology are being 

deployed—and continuously 

upgraded—to maximize mine rescue 

responses and miner survivability in the 

wake of mine accidents. 

III. Key Issues on Which Comment Is 

Requested 

We are requesting comments, data, 

and other information on topics relevant 

to underground mine rescue equipment 

and technology. Public comment is 

invited in response to the specific 

questions posed below. Persons may 

comment on any other relevant aspects, 

issues, or questions relevant to mine 

rescue equipment or technology. 

Commenters are encouraged to 

include any related cost and benefit 

(e.g., lives saved) data with their 

submission to this request for 

information. Any specific issues related 

to the impact on small or remote mines 

should also be identified. 

When answering the questions below, 

please key your responses to the specific 

topic and number of the question, and 

explain the specific reasons supporting 

your views. Please identify and provide 

relevant information on which you rely, 

including, but not limited to, episodes 

of past experience, as well as data, 

studies and articles, and standard 

professional practices. 

A. Rapid Deploy Systems 

Rapid Deploy Systems are systems 

which are easily transportable for use in 

mine emergencies and which can be 

quickly set up to provide emergency 

service. An example would be a seismic 

sensing system for detecting movement 

underground, or an electromagnetic 

sensing system to detect signals 

transmitted by trapped miners. These 

systems may employ advanced 

technology and may be under 

development. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2006 / Proposed Rules 4225 

1. What kinds of rapidly deployable 

systems could be used to locate miners 

who are trapped by a mine emergency? 

2. How would such a system work? 

3. Is the system currently available? If 

not, what obstacles are there to the 

development and implementation of 

this type of system? How long would it 

take to develop the system? 

B. Breathing Apparatus 

A mine rescue breathing apparatus is 

a device which provides oxygen for a 

mine rescue team member to use in 

contaminated mine atmospheres. 

1. U.S. mine rescue teams use devices 

by Draeger and Biomarine. What other 

types of breathing apparatuses are 

currently in use by foreign mine rescue 

teams? 

2. Are these other types of breathing 

apparatuses the best available for quick 

response in mine emergencies? 

3. Do these apparatuses incorporate 

the best available technology? Can they 

be readily obtained? Do they meet U.S. 

approval and certification standards? 

4. How can they be improved? How 

long would it take and at what cost? 

C. Self-Contained Self-Rescuers (SCSR) 

SCSRs are devices that provide 

miners with an MSHA required one 

hour of useable oxygen to be used for a 

mine emergency escape. Currently, 

SCSRs rely on two different 

technologies. One type uses a chemical 

reaction to generate oxygen. The other 

type uses compressed oxygen. 

1. Is there more effective technology 

to protect miners than the SCSRs 

currently available? If so, please 

describe. 

2. Should an SCSR be developed that 

provides more than one hour duration 

of oxygen? What duration is feasible 

considering that miners must carry the 

SCSR? Would it be desirable to require 

smaller and lighter SCSRs with less 

oxygen capacity to be worn on miner’s 

belts while at the same time requiring 

longer duration SCSRs to be stored in 

caches? 

3. MSHA standards require each mine 

operator to make available an approved 

SCSR device or devices to each miner. 

Should mines be required to maintain 

underground caches of SCSRs for 

miners to use during an emergency, or 

should each miner have access to more 

than one SCSR? 

4. SCSRs are currently required to be 

inspected at designated intervals 

pursuant to 30 CFR 75.1714–3. Should 

SCSRs be inspected more frequently 

than the current requirements? 

5. SCSR service life is determined by 

MSHA, NIOSH and the device’s 

manufacturer. The service life can range 

from ten to fifteen years depending on 

the type of SCSR. Should the service life 

of SCSRs be reduced to five years or a 

different time limit? 

D. Rescue Chambers 

A rescue chamber is an emergency 

shelter to which persons may go in case 

of a mine emergency for protection 

against hazards. A rescue chamber 

could provide, among other things, an 

adequate supply of air, first aid, and an 

independent communication system. 

1. Should rescue chambers be 

required for coal mines? 

2. What characteristics should they 

have? Should they be mobile? Should 

the rescue chamber be semi-permanent, 

or built into the mine? 

3. How long should they support a 

breathable environment? 

4. How many people should they 

support? 

5. How many rescue chambers should 

be required—how far apart should they 

be located? 

E. Communications 

1. What types of communication 

systems can be utilized in an emergency 

to enhance mine rescue? 

2. Current systems include 

permissible hand-held radios, handheld radios using small diameter wires, 

pager systems, sound powered 

telephones, leaky feeder systems that 

‘‘leak’’ radio signals out of and into 

special cables, and inductive coupled 

radios that use existing mine wires as a 

carrier for radio signals. Are there other 

systems? 

3. Should a particular system be 

required over another? If so, which 

system and why? 

4. What new communication devices 

or technology may be well suited for 

day-to-day operations and also assist 

miners in the event of an emergency? 

5. How should information be 

securely, reliably, and quickly 

transmitted during emergencies from 

remote locations to the mine rescue 

Command Center, or from MSHA 

headquarters to District offices? What 

technology should be used to quickly 

and securely transmit information from 

the mine site to or from MSHA 

headquarters, to District offices, mining 

companies, and the media? 

6. How can the number of relay points 

be minimized in a rescue situation so 

that communications do not get garbled 

or misunderstood? 

7. How can communications be 

improved when a rescuer is wearing a 

breathing apparatus and talking through 

a speaking diaphragm in the mask? 

8. PEDs are one-way communication 

devices that transmit text messages 

through the earth to receivers which are 

carried by miners. PEDs are currently 

being used in nineteen mines 

throughout the U.S. Should PEDs be 

used even though they can only 

transmit signals to miners and are not 

bi-directional? 

9. Can PEDs be developed into 2-way 

systems? If so, how long would it take 

and at what cost? 

F. Robotics 

A robot is a remote controlled device 

that can obtain and transmit information 

relative to the underground 

environment during mine emergencies. 

MSHA has pioneered the use of robots 

in mine emergency operations. 

1. Besides providing video, gas 

readings and temperature readings, 

what other uses can be made of robotics 

in mine emergencies? 

2. What could be the role of a robot 

in mine rescue operations? 

3. What information could the robot 

supply to the Command Center? 

4. What tasks could robots be built 

and programmed to perform? 

5. Should individual mines use robots 

for emergency situations? 

G. Thermal Imagers and Infra-Red 

Imagers 

Thermal imagers are devices which 

provide video pictures of the heat 

emitted by objects underground. Infrared imagers provide similar information 

through the use of the infra-red light 

spectrum. 

1. What ‘‘thermal imagers’’ and ‘‘infrared imagers’’ outside of those currently 

available in the U.S. are in use in other 

countries, and how can these be 

deployed in a mine rescue? 

2. Permissible equipment is 

equipment which is approved by MSHA 

to be safely used in gassy atmospheres. 

Should thermal and infra-red imagers be 

permissible equipment? 

3. What are the costs associated with 

these devices? 

4. Should all underground mining 

operations be required to have one of 

these devices available on-site? 

H. Developing New Mine Rescue 

Equipment 

1. What are the technological or 

economic problems in developing new 

equipment such as mine 

communications equipment or other 

mine rescue technology? 

2. Do manufacturers of such 

equipment have problems with making 

the equipment permissible for use? 

3. What are the specific problems? 

4. Should the approval process for 

such equipment be streamlined or 

otherwise changed? Do current approval 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
4226 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

standards allow the flexibility for 

developing new technology? 

5. How can equipment manufacturers 

be encouraged to invest in new 

technologies for mine rescue 

equipment? 

I. Mine Rescue Teams 

Mine rescue teams are specially 

equipped and trained miners who enter 

mines during mine emergencies to 

rescue trapped miners and help recover 

mines. Teams are equipped with selfcontained breathing apparatuses, gas 

detectors, mine rescue communication 

systems, and other specialized 

equipment. 

1. What equipment should an 

effective team have? 

2. Should the number of required 

breathing apparatuses per station be 

changed? How and why? 

3. Each mine rescue station is 

required to have twelve permissible cap 

lamps and a charging rack. Each station 

is also required to have two gas 

detectors. Should the number of cap 

lamps and detectors per station be 

changed? How and why? 

4. Where and how should that 

equipment be maintained? 

5. MSHA requirements for mine 

rescue teams are found in 30 CFR part 

49. These requirements cover such 

topics as type of equipment, equipment 

maintenance, team membership and 

training. What other equipment, 

technology, membership requirements 

and training would facilitate or would 

better facilitate team preparedness? 

6. Should each team be familiar with 

the operation of the transportation 

equipment maintained at all the mines 

the team covers? 

7. Some mine rescue teams are using 

breathing apparatus which, according to 

the equipment manufacturer, will soon 

become obsolete. How can existing mine 

rescue teams be encouraged to update 

the equipment and technology they use? 

8. Should any new technology be 

used to assist mine rescue teams at mine 

emergencies? 

J. Government Role 

1. What equipment and technology 

should be promoted to improve mine 

rescue? 

2. How should a mine’s status (small, 

remote or operating under special 

circumstances) be taken into account in 

developing new or different equipment 

requirements? 

2. How could our standards and 

implementation regarding mine 

equipment and technology be 

improved? 

3. What training, instruction and 

procedures should be provided to 

miners to better enable them to survive 

an underground emergency? 

4. What types of emergency supplies 

(timbering materials, ventilation 

materials, sealing materials, etc.) should 

be maintained at each mine site? 

5. What non-regulatory initiatives 

should we explore? 

6. What further steps should we take 

to improve the capability, availability 

and effective use of mine rescue 

equipment and technology? 

Dated: January 20, 2006. 

David G. Dye, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety 

and Health. 

[FR Doc. 06–722 Filed 1–23–06; 10:48 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–43–P 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2