Congress of the United States ‘Washington, BE 20515 September 21, 2015 ‘The Honorable Joseph Main Assistant Secretary ‘Mine Safety and Health ‘Mine Safety and Health Administration 201 12th Street South ‘slington, VA 22202 Dear Assistant Secretary Main: ‘The report accompanying the House Fiseal Year 2016 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill contained language regarding concems with the Mine Safety and Health Administration's Continuous Personal Dust Monitor (CPDM) regulation.’ We share your concer about the safety and health of our nation’s miners and support the goals to (1) develop protocols that protect miner health; (2) develop a mechanism to ensure that mines ‘will not have to alt production when sampling projections indicate end-of shift exceedance of the applicable standard; and (3) ensure mine operators are not incorrectly cited for noncompliance with the respirable coal mine dust standard when particles other than coal {dust may have been collected in the samples. ‘We remain concemed that the agency, in issuing the new coal mine dust regulation, has not sufficiently considered the impact of new rock dust composition within the context of the overall changes promulgated. Rock dust has been, and remains, an important feature of explosion suppression. However, the changes tothe CPDM regulation occurred prior tothe rock dust remix recommended by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health to improve its effectiveness as an explosion suppressant, Any testing related tothe regulation has not taken into consideration smaller rock dust particles, ‘Additionally, the sampling frequency mandated by the new rule in conjunction with the new ‘mandated sampling technology increases the likelihood for operators to be cited for the Comminee x aware hat rock ut maybe ued in mining options to cuppecs el duct. The Commie oes that his use may creat the potent frie new Continuous Personal Dust Monit, required by MSHA, miscaraterize rock us as coal dst, thus subjecting operators to enforcement actions where no oveexposres 0 ‘coal st exist. The Commitee noes tha an extension on enforcement ofthe regulation would provide tne for MSHA to complete its cunt review of his problem and design protocols to prevent the potenti er inccustecontaminated, but otherwise compliant, samples. It appears the sampling technology isnot yet proven to effectively distinguish between rock dust and coal dust, meaning operators may be incorrectly cited for noncompliance based on false readings of the mine environment. Further, it is unclear ifthe new rock dust will be more prone to become airborne in the mine environment, increasing the possibilty of flawed results. ‘We request you provide the relevant committees with information detailing how the agency is working to ensure the sampling technology is capable of accurately distinguishing between coal and rock dust, as well asthe steps you are taking to address concers that mine operators may be incorrectly cited for otherwise compliant samples. Additionally, we ask MSHA to provide the relevant committoes with the results of any studies examining the interaction of rock dust and the CPDM, Thank you for your atention to our comments. We respectfully request your response by ctober 19, 2015. Blab Loy — Coden Kline. Chairman Committee on Appropriations a Sow Cl Tomcore Chatman Sabconmite o Labor, Healy and Human Services, Education and Relted Agencies ‘Commitee on Education and Worktorce La TIM WALBERG Chairman Subcommittee on Workforce Protections